and not civil though they be visible to men and so outward in respect of the conscience So outward Government is either such in respect to the conscience and it is that we have now described or outward in respect to the Church viz. That that which is exercised in matters relating to the Church and yet are not properly Spiritual but Civil and concern the Church not as it is a Church but as it is a Society Or we may distinguish thus the Government of the Church is either invisible viz. in the conscience or visible and this is either in things that are Ecclesiastical and so it is inward in respect to the Church or in things that are Civil and so it is outward The first of these is immediately exercised by Christ the second mediately and that by the Guides of the Church as his Deputies the third by the Magistrate as a servant of Christ in his Kingdom that he hath over all the World I hope now the outward and inward Government of the Church of Christ is sufficiently distinguished and not so confounded as to be the cause of mistakes about it But now let us see whether he himself who chargeth others with this confounding be not guilty of it and doth not here mistake the truth by confounding the Internal and the External Government of the Church It is very evident that it is so for 1. He setteth down the bare terms of a distinction between internal and external Government but doth not tell what he meaneth by either of them Whether the distinction be to be applyed to the Conscience and so be meant of invisible and visible Government Or to the Church and so be understood of Ecclesiastical and formal or of Civil and Objective Government of the Church We are to seek in this for all his distinction 2. He seemeth confusedly to refer to both these as he here manageth the distinction or at least some things seem to draw the one way and some the other For when he denyeth Christs power and Authority spoken of in the Scripture to refer to the outward Government of the Church this must be meant of that Government which is Civil not of visible Ecclesiastical Government I hope he will not deny that to be a part of Christs Authority Again where he granteth Christs internal mediatory power over the Conscience this must be meant of his invisible Government both because it is certain Christ hath such a Power and our Author here denyeth all other power of Government to him Also because no other power is internal over the Conscience but this But what-ever be his meaning this answer doth not take away the force of our argument for if he deny the Scriptures that speak of Christs power Kingdom and Authority to be meant of Civil power but to be meant of visible internal power in the Church this is all we desire for if Christ hath such a Kingdom then the management of the visible Government of the Church is his trust in which his faithfulness would make him settle a particular form as Moses did Only I take notice how inconsistent this is with his Principles seeing he denyeth any visible power in the Church save that of Word and Sacraments as it followeth immediately and putteth all other power in the hand of the Magistrate as do all the rest of the Erastians If he deny the Scriptures that speak of Christ's Authority and Kingdom to be meant of Visible Ecclesiastical Government and make them speak only of an invisible Government over the Conscience which is exercised by his Word and spirit in this first he is contrary to all men for even Erastians themselves do grant that Christ hath such a Kingdom but they would have it managed by the Magistrate whom they make Christ's Vicegerent in his Mediatory Kingdom and others do hold such a Kingdom of Christ and that it is managed by the Officers of his Church Secondly he derogateth from the Kingdom of Christ denying that which is a confiderable part of the exercise of his Kingly Office What is Christ a King not only of Angels but of Men united in a visible Society the Church and yet hath no visible Government exercised in his name among them this is a ridiculous inconsistency Thirdly he is contrary to many Scriptures which speak of Christs Kingdom and Authority and must be understood of a visible Authority exercised in a visible Government such as Eph. 4.10 11. Setting up of Pastors there mentioned is a visible act and it is made an act of his Authority 1 Cor. 11.3 Christ's Headship is mentioned with a reference to the ordering the visible decency of his Worship Also Psal 2.8 Psal 22.27 Psal 110.3 Col. 1.13 and many other places which it is strange daring to restrict to the invisible exercise of Christs Authority in the soul Fourthly this is contrary to all these Scriptures which speak of the several outward acts of the exercise of Christs Government as gathering a people to him Isa 55.4 5. Acts 15 14 15 16 17. giving them laws Isa 33.2 Mat. 28.20 Mat. 5.17 19. Verses c. setting up Officers Eph. 4.10.11 giving them power of Discipline Mat. 16.19 Mat. 18.17 18. John 20.23 Fifthly it is contrary to himself for Preaching and Administring Sacraments are visible acts if then Christ as King hath invested his Servants with this power which he confesseth p. 177. where also he confesseth that he Governeth the Church outwardly by his Laws he must have a visible Government as he is King of his Church That which he addeth viz. that this is made known to us in the word but not the other viz. that he hath appointed a particular Form this I say 1. Beggeth the Question 2. Destroyeth his Answer wherein he denyeth Christ's visible Government for this is a part of it which he granteth § 5. Another Answer he frameth to our Argument from Christ and Moses p. 177. That if the comparison of Christ and Moses infer an equal exactness of disposing every thing in the Church then we must be bound to all circumstances as the Jews were but there is this difference between the Old and New Testament that there all ceremonies and circumstances were exactly prescribed here there are only general rules for circumstantial things there the very pins of the Tabernacle were commanded here it is not so but a liberty is left for times place persons c. Reply 1. We do not plead for an equal exactness in determining all things We know the Old and New Testament state of the Church requireth a diversity here but we plead for the equal faithfulness of Christ with Moses now Christ was intrusted with setting up a Government in the Church as well as Moses whence it followeth that he behoved to enjoyn the particular Form of it as Moses did seeing without this great matters in the Church even that whereon its Union and Being as a Society do hang are left at a great uncertainty
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
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.