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
that large debate If we should grant a determining power to any authority about the things in hand it should not be to the Civil Magistrate but to the Guides of the Church met in a lawful Assembly And it is not only contrary to truth but a contradiction to what this Author writeth elsewhere in his Appendix about Excommunication where he taketh much pains to assert a power of Discipline in the Church-Guides and if so certainly the Magistrate is not the lawful Authority in the Church for that implyeth Church Authority I hope he will not say that Ministers have lawful Authority in the State because they have no Civil Authority why then should we say or suppose that the Magistrate hath lawful Authority in the Church except he think that the Magistrate hath Church-Authority against which he there disputeth especially seeing Respublica non est in Ecclesia sed Ecclesia in Republica he that hath only Civil power hath no power in the Church whatever he hath about Church-matters and over Church-men § 4. In asserting the Magistrates power in these things he professeth that he will not so much make his way through any party as strive to beget a right understanding among them that differ how well he keepeth his promise may be seen by examining what he saith on which I will not much insist intending to meet with this his Doctrine elsewhere but only mark what is amiss with a short ground of our censure of it for this debate is somewhat extrinsecal to the indifferency of Church-Government it rather supposeth it than asserteth or proveth it In explicating his second distinction about the Magistrate's power p. 41. The internal formal elicitive power of order saith he lies in the Authoritative exercise of the Ministerial function in Preaching of the word and Administration of the Sacraments but the external objective imperative power of jurisdiction lies in a due care and provision for the defence protection and propagation of Religion The former is only proper to the Ministry the later to the Supream Magistracy Here several things are to be noted 1. That he maketh the power of Order to be all one with internal formal elicitive power about Church affairs and the power of Jurisdiction the same with external objective and imperative power about them This is instead of distinguishing to confound things most different for I hope he is not Ignorant that all the Assertors of Church-power against the Erastians do distinguish Church-power or the Keys of the Kingdom of Heaven for so is this power designed by Christ in the power or Key of Order and the power or Key of Jurisdiction Let the Author shew us one not Erastian who before himself did ever make the power of Order in the Church to comprehend all formal and elicitive Church-power Yea he doth by this most evidently contradict himself which I wonder to meet with so often in such a learned man for in his Appendix he maketh the power of Discipline to be in the Church and so to be formal internal and elicitive Church-power and sure the power of Discipline is the power of Jurisdiction not of Order not only because all that speak of this distinction do so understand it but also our Author doth here make the power of Order to respect only the word and Sacraments and so the power of Discipline must belong to Jurisdiction according to him now whereas he maketh the power of Jurisdiction there to be internal only in the Church and here to be external in the Magistrate only if this be not a contradiction let any man judge 2. Another thing that here I take notice of is that the power which he ascribeth to the Ministry is only Administration of the Word and Sacraments Then they have no power of Discipline for every one knoweth that that is some other thing than the Word and Sacraments Now this is contradictory to the whole of his own Appendix and also to Scripture which giveth to Church-Officers power of binding and loosing Mat. 18.18 Jo. 20.23 and of ruling the Lord's People 1 Thes 5.12 Heb. 13.17 But I insist not on this it having been made evident by so many against the Erastians 3. He ascribed all power about Church affairs to the Magistrate except that of Administring the Word and Sacraments and so to the Magistrate as it is only belonging to him for he giveth him that which he called the power of Jurisdiction and that is to him all power but that of Word and Sacraments Now there was never any Erastian that gave more to the Magistrate than this for by this means he hath all the power of deciding controversies in Synods for that is not preaching of the Word of Ordination the exercise of Discipline c. and none but he hath any share in it Behold unto what absurdities this man runneth unawares while he maketh it his business to unhinge that Government which Christ hath setled in his Church And indeed I cannot but take notice of a necessary connexion between this putting all Church-power in the hands of the Magistrate and denying it to be juris divini For he knew well that if it had been left to be decided by Church-men among themselves it had not been easily determined amidst the interest of men clashing one with another the more conscientious and self-denied sort being ever the fewest § 5. Page 42. Speaking of the Subordination or Co-ordination of the Magistracy and Ministry there be some mistakes worthy of our notice Though he acknowledgeth the person of the Magistrate to be subject to the word of God yet he denieth it to be subject to the power of the Ministers This is the Doctrine of Court-preachers who love to flatter rather than speak truth But consider 1 It is to me an inconsistency that Ministers have power or authority of Preaching the Word and the Magistrate's person is subject to this Word and yet he is not subject to the power of Ministers When they teach rebuke exhort with all authority and command in the name of the Lord doth not this reach Magistrates as well as others if they be subject to the word of God I see not how they are subject to it if they be not subject to it as declared by Christ's Embassadors which is the ordinary way of dispensing it and if so then are they subject to the Preaching power of Ministers at least 2. Magistrates are also subject to the ruling power of Ministers for they rule over Christ's Flock the Members of the Church of which number if the Magistrate be I see no ground in Scripture for exempting him from the power of their Jurisdiction When Christ said Whosesoever sins ye remit they are ramitted and whosesoever sins ye retain they are retained he did not add except the supream Magistrates May not I pray the Pastors of the Church debar him if he be a flagitious man from the Lord's Table as Ambrose did to Theodosius and if they may
the Officers in the Synagogues for the Priests were not admitted by Solemn Ordination but judged of their fitness as to birth and body by the same ordination but the Rulers of the Synagogues were admitted by Ordination and if any of the Priests came to that Office they as well as others had their peculiar designation and appointment to it Here I reply 1. I believe that Gospel-Ministers did not properly succeed to either of these but stand upon another foundation viz. Christs Institution and so it is needless to enquire which of them they should succeed to I yield also that the name of Priests under the Gospel hath brought in the thing it self and even the Mass which ought not to be 2. What can he design by this Discourse Would he make the Office of the Ministry stand on no other bottom but imitation of the Synagogues Rulers and these Rulers to be brought in by a confederate Discipline i. e. to be a humane invention If he say not this he saith nothing to the purpose but I hope he will not say it 3. It is false that the Priests were not solemnly set apart for their Office though they had it by birth yet they behoved to be solemnly initiated to it and I am sure Mr. Still would not have said that they were no otherwise set apart but by the judgment of the Sanhedrim of their birth and body if he had not in this so consulted Antiquity as that he forgot to look into the Bible I do not deny but there was such a Judgment to pass on them neither ought Ministers be now admitted without tryal yea the Scripture which is surer than the Talmud telleth us so much Ezr. 2.62 63. Yet we find also their solemn setting apart to the Office described Exod. 28.41 and 29.1 Lev. 8.2 c. And spoken of 2 Chron. 26.18 Yea the very Idol-Priests would not want this solemn setting apart 2 Chron. 13 9. Jud. 17.5 12. Yea our Authors opinion everteth it self for to what purpose was a publick judging of them before their entry on the exercise of their Office if there was no solemn admission of them to it sure a solemn declaring them such as God had appointed his Priests to be if there had been no more they being kept from exercising the Office till this was done was a solemn admission 4. I would know who these others were who were Rulers of the Synagogue and so Teachers of the people at least Superintenders over Gods publick Worship as he elswhere phraseth it beside the Priests if they were only Levites or others also as he seemeth to imply and if any other but Priests and Levites were admitted to that Office I would know quo warranto sure the Scripture speaketh of these as old Testament-Teachers Neh. 8.9 2 Chron. 17.8 9. and of none else but immediately inspired Prophets But I see Mr. Stilling looketh more to Rabinical stories in these matters than to the Bible and to the customs of the Synagogue in the days of the Apostacy than to the commands of God as he gave them though they be rare who are made mad by too much Learning yet there are whom too much reading without holding to the Scripture as the Rule maketh to dote I need not insist on what he writeth p. 268 c. of the Rite of laying on of Hands enough hath been said to shew that it proveth not what he intendeth nor on the persons ordaining in the Synagogue and in the Church of which he pa. 272 c. for in both he confesseth abomination to have been done in common by those in Power and afterward without divine Warrant restrained to one if Christ hath given power to all Presbyters to do it we must have some warrant to restrain this Power ere we dare do it but of this enough before Sect. 9. In his further prosecuting the correspondence of the Apostolick Church with the Synagogue he speaketh p. 285. of the Order setled by the Apostles in the Churches planted by them for ruling of them and first he maketh a work about the name 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which is the same with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 used in the Synagogue but from his own Discourse it 's clear how little weight is to be laid on this consideration as to what he intendeth seeing that name was ever used to denote Power and Dignity whether in Church or State and so doth no more belong to the Synagogue than other things I take notice of what he saith in the end of p. 286. If his design is not to dispute the Arguments of of either party viz. those who conceive the Apostles setled the Government of the Church in absolute purity or else by Superiority and subordination among the setled Officers of the Church but to lay down these principles which may equally concern both in order to accommodation But I humbly conceive it was very incumbent upon him to answer the arguments of both parties and they must be answered to us before we be obliged to receive his Doctrine of which anon that we cannot know what form the Apostles setled and that they setled not any one form For as long as arguments brought by either of the controverting parties do stand untaken away to prove that the Apostles setled this or that form the Judgment can never acquiesce in his opinion that they setled none or that we cannot know what they setled This is a strange way of disputing especially when the design is to satisfie the Conscience in order to peace and yielding up its opinion to lay down such Principles to this end with strong arguments standing against them untouched or answered 'T is like Mr. Stilling thinketh that when he hath furnished Men with some probabilities that may encourage them to comply with what Government shall be set up in the Church their interest and maintenance should resist the strength of all arguments against it for he will furnish them with no help in this but they must have very pliable Consciences if Will be furnished to an opinion so maintained His Principles in order to accommodation or all that he will say of the Apostles Government he draweth into 3 Propositions p. 287. which in sum are these That we cannot know what was the Apostles practice that it was not always the same that whatever it was we are not obliged to observe it Let us hear how he maketh these out Sect. 10. His first Proposition he setteth down thus That we cannot arrive to such an absolute certainty what course the Apostles took in governing Churches as to infer from thence the only divine Right of that one form which the several parties imagine come nearest to it This Proposition is not so ingenuously nor clearly set down as need were wherefore I shall a little remove the mist cast on the Truth by his words which may make simple Souls mistake it And 1. There is some ambiguity in absolute certainty if he mean so
whole World became Christians and the Bishops of Rome and Constantinople did strive for the place of Universal Bishop I hope it appeareth to any who consider that there is nothing yet said by him which can overturn the Divine Rite of Parity even to have been maintained in the Primitive times I mean not of the last step he speaketh of when Papacy it self began to appear for all that hath been said sheweth that Imparity was never judged of necessity and that the Imparity which was used was rather of Order than of Jurisdiction which is nothing against the Divine Rite of that Parity we plead for Sect. 3. His 2d Argument p. 374. is That the same Form was not of old observed in all Churches where he sheweth that in many places there were no Bishops as he proveth of Scotland and other places This we accept of and add that where there were Bishops it is not nor cannot be by him proved that they had any Superior Jurisdiction but only Precedency and so the Divine Rite of Parity may stand for all this His 3d Argument p. 377. is That the Government of the Church was conform to the Civil Government which he saith is insisted on by Learned Persons on all sides especially after the division of the Roman Empire And he giveth some Instances of it in the correspondency of Civil Prefects and Arch-Bishops in several places To all this let me say a few words 1. This Argument destroyeth it self for in the first antiquity which was the surest the Powers of the World were not Christian and so the Church could not conform to the state in her Offices 2. It is here confessed that this Conformity was especially I believe it may be said only after that division of the Roman Empire but those were the times when the man of Sin had almost got into his chair and therefore their practice can prove nothing of the mind of the Primitive Church 3. If this notion hold then it must be looked upon as a lawful and prudent expedient that there be one Pope as there was one Emperor This Mr. Still must maintain or he saith nothing 4. If this was their Rite of old then the Church behoved to be under two chief Bishops when the Roman Emperor was divided into two But this he doth not alledge but rather sheweth how it was divided into 13 Diocesses 5. If we receive this opinion then in a Kingdome there must be one head who must have his Councel of Bishops without a charge of the several Diocesses for the Kings Council hath not Precedency of several parts of the Country and they must authorize their deputies like Sheriffs yearly c. And in a Common-wealth there must be Independant Government but this I hope the Author will not own 6. It is most unreasonable to say that the Church-Government should be conform to the Civil because they are conversant about things and aim at ends so different the one respecteth things that are most different in several Nations viz. Mens Civil Interest and Customes and Inclinations the other respecteth that which ought to be every where the same viz. Religion His 4. Argument p. 379. is That other Episcopal Government was settled in the Church yet Presbyterian Ordination was looked on as valid This is not against us His last Argument p. 382. is That several restraints were laid on by Councils about the Observation of Rites and Customes and something of Church-Discipline but what is this I pray to Parity or Imparity we are not against determinations of Indifferent things that concern order and decency though we think that the Form of Government is determined by Christ not left to the will of man CHAP. VIII IN this Chapter our Author would make us believe that all the world was ever of his Opinion and indeed this is so common for men to alledg whatever be their singular notions of things that we are not to lay much weight upon it Videlius took as much pains to make all reformed Divines to speak for Erastianism I might excuse my self from medling any further with this last Chapter of his 1. From the needlesness of the thing because we do not build the Divine Right of Presbytery on mens Opinions who we know can err and therefore if all the world were against it if the Scripture be for it so must we 2. From the disadvantage I lie under as to this part of the dispute with him If I had been of Mr. Still opinion in this point in controversie I might through compliance with courses have been furnished with a good Library and other conveniencies of studying the want of which doth incapacitate me to search into the opinions of those worthy men which he citeth in doing whereof I hope it would not be difficult to shew that some of their Testimonies are made to speak otherwise than they thought and others of them are irreconcilable with what themselves have elsewhere written Sect. 2. Notwithstanding we shall essay briefly to say as much to his allegations as may take off that edge they seem to have for cutting asunder the cause which we maintain P. 384. he hath a confident assertion I believe saith he there will upon the most impartial survey scarce be one Church of the Reformation brought which doth embrace any form of Government because it looked upon that form as only necessary by an unalterable standing Law but every one took up that form of Government which was judged most sutable to the state and condition of the several Churches I wonder to see this so confidently asserted without proof It had been incumbent on Mr. Still for confirming this his dream to have gone through the confession of the several reformed Churches and let us see on what ground they then built their Church-Government for it will not sufficiently prove what was the judgment of these Churches that some eminent men in them did assert such things which latter of the two he only insisteth on and that to little purpose too as I hope shall appear But the falsehood of this Allegiance I will make appear afterwards when I have tried the strength of the Testimonies he bringeth for his opinions Sect. 3. He beginneth with them who have asserted the mutability of the form of Government in Thesi where he maketh it his chief business to shew that the Church of England of old was of this opinion To which I answer That those worthy men having nothing in their eye but Episcopacy their work was to oppose the Divine Right of that there was never an other form brought in competition with it nor much minded by them and therefore we agree with them in their design Of Foreign Divines his first Testimony is of Chemnitius to which I cannot give a particular answer because not having his book I cannot try it only this confideration I shall lay down to take off the strength of it Neither Mr. Still nor any man else ought to lay
be Excommunicated is not determined in Scripture 3. The Council at Jerusalem Act. 15. and all the Councils before Constantine's time were of no great use for they had not this use there being no Magistrate to own them as his Council 4. This destroys that received Axiom among all them who are not the avowed Followers of Erastus viz. that the Magistrate's power is cumulative to the Church not privative for it maketh his to swallow it up there being no Authority nor great use of Synods without the Magistrate 5. This taketh away from the Church entireness of power in her self in things that do concern her as such a Society and a Capacity to subsist without the Magistrate which I hope this Author when better advised will not own 5. It is also false that when Church-Guides Assembled have deliberated and determined the force strength and obligation of the things so determined doth depend on the Magistrate for it dependeth on the reason of them containing the Will of Christ and not on the Authority of men § 7. I come now to see what Arguments he bringeth for what he hath asserted 1. Saith he Taking the Church as incorporated into the Civil State though the Object of these things the matter of them and persons determining them be ecclesiastical yet the force and ground of the Obligation of them is wholly Civil Ans That the Church is in the Republick we do not deny yet that must not be so understood as if either these two were not distinct Corporations or the Power of the one were subordinate to or swallowed up the other The saying of Optat Milev which he citeth that Ecclesia est in Republica non Respublica in Ecclesia will not bear that but the meaning is that either the Church is in the Rep. as the lesser society in the greater as a few Parishes are in a County so the Primitive Churches were in Rome Corinth c. or when the Church is aeque late patens with the Nation that the Church is in Protection of the Civil State not e contra seeing Kings must be Nursing Fathers to her and as it were keep house for her to be nursed in Or speaking of a National Church that it 's being a nation is Prior in order of Nature than it 's being a Church because it might be a Nation and not a Church but it cannot be a Church and not a Nation Now none of these do infer that the Obligation of determinations made by Church men about Church affairs is civil but it may be and is Ecclesiastical viz. from the will of Christ which the Church holdeth forth as his Embassadors Wherefore this Ratiocination is altogether inconsequent But he cometh to Authority to see if that will help him He citeth P. Martyr lo. com clas fig. 4. c. 5. s. 11. and in 1 Sam. 8. Nam quod ad potest atem ecclesiasticam attinet satis est civilis Magistratus is enim curare debet ut omnes officium faciant What he meaneth for citing both these places for these words I know not un less it be that they are to be found in them both But I am sure neither they nor any thing like them is in the former place for the later I have not that part of his works but the contrary of what this Author intendeth is there clearly and fully taught viz. he is refuting them who would have the Power of discipline in the Church to cease now when the Magistrate is Christian and he asserteth Ecclesiastical Power and Civil as distinct and only says that the Magistrate should correct ministers if they do not carry as they ought but this is far from that quod ad potestatem Ecclesiae attinet satis est civilis Magistrat us He refers for the judgment of the reformed Divines in this to Vedel de Episc Const Mag. et Offic. Magistratus annexed to Grot. de Imper. sum pot circa sacra But it is well known that Vedelius was an Erastian and as this Author doth did fowly abuse the reformed Divines making them speak what they never thought wherefore I refer to Apol. Triglandius Revius who have refuted that seducing Pamphlet of Vedelius For the other Author let his Citations be weighed they will never prove that any of the Reformers gave the Power of determining Church-Affairs to the Magistrate He addeth three reasons of his Allegation yet they are but two for the two former do coincide and the strength of them is that it is from the Authority of the Magistrate that obligation to obedience or penalty is or which is the same it is from him that the sanction or annexing of Penalties to the constitutions is that it is from him only that the force of obligation is in matters determined by advice of the Church and which do concern the Church Ans All this is easily taken away by a well known distinction in things that are commanded by Christ and by his Church declared to be such and also are ratified by the sanction of the Magistrate there is a two-fold Obligation one Spiritual this is from Christ as Law-giver and is laid on by the Instrumental intervention of the Church as his Herald Proclaiming his will Another civil whereby we are bound to external Punnishment if we contravene such a constitution this is from the Magistrate of this not of the former the Author's Assertion is to be understood otherwise it is false For that Obligation is no way from the Magistrate His third reason is the Magistrate can null any Obligation laid on by the Church representative as if they do prescribe some indifferent rites and ceremonies to be observed by all he forbidding them the former supposed Obligation is null otherwise these absurditier would follow 1. That there are two Supream Powers in a Nation at once 2. That a man lyeth under different Obligations to the same thing 3. The same action may be a duty and a sin viz. Being forbidden by the one Power and commanded by the other Ans 1. He supposeth which we will never yield to him that ceremonies may be indifferent and imposeable by men Nay all the Ceremonies of God's worship being worship themselves are Christ's institution otherwise but will-worship And so himself understandeth Ceremonies p. 68. It is like forgetting what he here said 2. It concerneth the Author as much as it doth us to answer his own Objection for he ascribeth to the Church an intrinsecal power of Discipline Now suppose one be excommunicated the Church commandeth it the Magistrate forbiddeth it if his prohibition doth not null the former Obligation the same absurdities follow that are mentioned in his reason if it doth then this doth as much destroy the power of Discipline in that Church which he asserteth as it destroyeth the Power of determining about other Church-matters which we assert 3. We deny that the Magistrate by his power can destroy the obligation to any Church-Act being otherwise warrantable laid
and exposed to the will of man who may and readily will erre 2. The difference that he maketh between the Law and the Gospel is most false viz. That there all circumstances of worship were determined here not so yea it is with more truth observed by some that more circumstances of worship were left to the prudence of men under the Law then now under the Gospel For every one of their actions imposed as sacrifices washings c. had of necessity abundance of circumstances attending them as when how with what Instruments c. Wherefore the more ordinances there were the more circumstances undetermined There is indeed this difference that God under the Law did by his command place Religion in many natural circumstances of worship as in the day of Circumcision of killing the Passover c. and so set them above the degree of meer circumstances which he hath not done under the Gospel but it doth not follow that all things even of greaatest moment to Church-Order and the worship of God are now left free because we have not so many Ceremonies as the Jews had for those circumstances which are of Civil and common concernment to Religion and other actions be left to prudence and matters relating to the Government of the Church which are of that nature be also left free yet we must not for that think that the Government it self as managed even the substance of it which must lie in a particular Form seeing a general notion of Government is not practicable is left to the will of men I hope our Author will not say that the Form of Government is a circumstance neither ought he to say that it is a thing of common concernment to the Church and other Societies The Church is a Society singular and of another Nature than others Cant. 6.9 She is but one the only one of her Mother therefore her Government must be sutable wherefore it ought not to be put in in the same case with the Natural circumstances that accompany all our actions which here the Author most unwisely doth § 6. For a third answer he bringeth reasons why all punctillio's as he is pleased to speak should not be now determined as they were under the Law In this we do not contradict him as appeareth from what is now said Quere non respondes ad rem Neither is it savoury to account the form of Government by which the visible being of the Church doth stand a punctillio Such a diminutive expression is not without contempt But let us hear his Reasons The first p. 179. is taken from the perfection of the gospel-Gospel-state above the Jewish That Church needed the fescues of Ceremonies to direct her and must have every part of her Lesson set her This must not be still sub ferula and not dare to vary in any Circumstance which doth not concern the thing it self As boy a at School hath his Lesson and the manner of learning it prescribed At the Vniversity more general directions do serve In that Church every circumstance was determined in this things moral remain in force but circumstantials are left more at liberty Ans 1. The point in question is not here touched 'T is not questioned whether the Gospel-Church should be loaded with Ceremonies as was the Jewish nor whether in every Circumstance she be bound by a Law though he doth falsly suppose that the Jewish Church was bound in every Circumstance as I have already showed but rather whether she be bound in any thing besides the moral Law And particularly whether she be bound to a form of Church Government Such loose declamations as this aggravating some absurdities impertinent to the thing in hand are no solid refutations I hope the Church may be bound to a particular form of Government viz. to parity of Ministers and yet have liberty in abundance of circumstances His example of a School-boy and one at the Vniversity of a Son when a Child and when at Age makes nothing against us For in both Cases they are in subjection to some positive commands of the Master or Father So is the Gospel-Church under some such Commands though not so many as the Jews were 2. Is it contrary to Gospel-perfection to be under the Commands of Christ as to a Form of Church Government and to be ruled by a way of his contriving This must be a strange kind of perfection that he dreameth of We believe that the Church is yet so imperfect and will be while on Earth that she hath need to be Governed by Christs Laws and is far happier in that Case then if she were left to chuse her own way in matters of so great Concernment as is the Form of Church Government 3. Is it not as contrary and far more to the perfection of the Gospel-Church to be under a form of Government imposed by the Magistrate as this man would have us then if it be imposed by Christ Sure Christs Yoke is easier then mens and his device must be better then theirs Indeed in things that concern one Church and not another it is better that the prudence of Governours doth determine then that there be an Universal Law binding all But in things that are equally good to all it is better to be under Christs General then mans particular Law Now the thing in debate Parity or Imparity among Ministers is attended with the same conveniences or inconveniences in all Countries and Conditions and while men are prone to Tyranny on the one hand and to divisions on the other Wherefore it is no ways unfit that Christ should here decide the matter by a general Law 'T is not like the Time or place of meeting which must vary in divers places Neither can he shew us any reason why it should be one way in one Church and another way in another except mans pleasure which is a bad Rule in the matters of Christ 4. Whereas he saith that in the Gospel Church things moral remain in their force but circumstantials are left at more liberty I suppose he meaneth Natural morality or things contained in the moral Law and not things that have any morality or goodness by any Law of God for if he meant this latter he doth but trifle for his meaning must be that things which are not determined by any command and have neither good nor evil in them are left at liberty which who doth not know Neither can he say that it was otherwise in the Jewish Church as this his assertion must imply if that be his meaning If he mean the former as certainly he doth then 1. it is an ill division of things that belong to the Church in Morals and Circumstantials Be there not Christs positive institutions which belong to neither of these kind The Lord's Supper is no moral thing in this sence neither I hope is it a Circumstantial thing that is left at liberty 2. If he call all things Circumstantial which are not
thus moral and assert them to be left at liberty he doth at one blow cut of all the institutions of Christ and will have the Gospel-Church so perfect as to be under no law of God but the moral Law and what Laws men please to add unto it This I hope he will retract when he considereth what he hath here asserted For I perceive that even learned men can say sometimes they know not what § 7. His second reason p. 180. is this The Form of government among the Jews in the Tribe of Levy was agreeable to the form of Government among the other Tribes and their Ecclesiastical Government was one of their Judicial Laws Wherefore if in this we compare Christ with Moses we must hold it needful that he prescribe also a form of Civil Government Ans 1. When we compare Christ with Moses we have very good cause to make an exception where the Scripture hath evidently made it We compare them then as two Mediators entrusted with managing the affairs which concern mens Eternal Salvation among which are Church Administrations Hence there is Warrant for stretching that comparison made of them in Scripture to their faithfulness in appointing Church Government but as to Civil Government the Scripture maketh a plain exception when it evidently holdeth forth Moses a State Law-giver as well as a Church Law-giver and it doth as evidently testifie that Christ was not such when he denieth his Kingdom to be of this World Joh. 18.36 And that he is a Judge and divider of inheritance among men Luk. 12.14 and his mean condition in the World unlike to Moses maketh this farther appear Wherefore there is no necessity of comparing them in Civil though we compare them in Church-Administrations The Lord was pleased to make the Government of Israel in respect of Church and State both to be Theocratia to give them both kinds of Laws immediately from himself That seeing he hath under the Gospel done otherwise as to State-Government he hath also done otherwise as to Church-Government what a mad kind of consequence is this And there is evident reason of this differing Dispensation under the Law and under the Gospel I suppose if the difference of cases that arise from variety of Circumstances did permit it were the happiest case for God's People to have all their actions and concernments particularly determined by the Lord who is wiser then men now the Lord doth thus with them so far as it hinders not their happiness by a load of multiplicity of Laws Wherefore seeing the Church and State of the Jews were commensurable being in one Nation it was as easie for them to have their State-Laws determined by the Lord as their Church-Laws But it is far otherwise under the Gospel where the Church is spread over so many different Nations of divers dispositions and manners to have determined all things for the Civil Good of all these Nations which must be superadded To the Determinations of Natures Law would have made the Bible a burthen to men But it is not so in Ecclesiastical matters there is nothing peculiar to the Church as a Church or Religious Society but supposing what Nature Dictates may without burthening People with many Laws be determined and imposed upon all Hence is it that the Lord saw it for the good of the Jewish Church to give them both Civil and Church-Laws and for the good of the Gospel Church to give them Church-Laws but to leave Civil-Laws to prudence guided by the general Rules of Scripture and Nature Neither do I think as our Author seemeth sometime to think that it was any part of legal bondage to have Laws from God even in the least matters and that which is Christian liberty to be free from Gods Laws in these things when we are bound to the same by the Laws of men I should rather prefer their state to ours thus far but their bondage was to have many things determined and imposed upon them which were naturally indifferent and so free which the Lord hath now left free under the Gospel Answ 2. It is not to the purpose to tell us that the Government of the Tribe of Levy was like that of the other Tribes For Church-Government was very different from Civil Government for all that viz. in this that it was in the hand of the Tribe of Levy and no other Tribe which was a positive Institution of God that it did cognosce of other matters than Civil Government did that it did inflict other censures But let it be never so co-incident with Civil Government yet it was of Gods Institution which is all that is needful to our purpose That the Form of Ecclesiastical Government took place among them as one of their Judicial Laws is a groundless Assertion Yea it is a begging of the Question and also taking away the Distinction of Church and State among the Jews which is not needful here to be insisted upon till some man Answer what Mr. Gillespie in his Aarons-rod hath written to this purpose § 8. His third Reason ib. is the People of the Jews were an entire People when their Church-Government was setled the Gospel Church was but in Forming in Christs and the Apostles times they settled what was for the present need of the Church in her first Constitution as in appointing Officers this will not serve when the Church is grown and spread her coat cut out for her Infancy must not be urg'd on her when grown Answ 1. This doth no way satisfie the comparing of Christ's faithfulness with Moses for Moses gave Laws in the Wilderness not only for that wandring condition but for their setled state in the Land of Canaan Must we then think that Christ took care that the Church in Infancy should have his Laws to be guided by but afterward to be left to the Dictates of men Sure our Lord was as careful to foresee future needs of his People as to provide for present wants 2. The Church in the Apostles days though not so far spread as now yet was so multiplyed and setled as that she was capable to be ruled by Parity or Primacy Might there not be a Bishop in Ephesus Corinth c. and especially in Galatia a National Church Might there not be a College of Presbyters then as well as now Wherefore if the Apostles provided for present need they behoved either to determine either of these two ex are tuo 3. What is there in our case that maketh another kind of Government needful then what was needful in the Apostles times We have many Congregations which all need their several Officers and must be ruled in common either by all these Officers or by some set above the rest was not this their case too I would fain know where lyeth the difference may be in this there could not then be one Head over all the Churches which now may seeing the powers of the world profess Christ It is true there was
but we think it like that he hath determined it as for other reasons so because even men have not appointed the Generals of Government without a form in which they should subsist much less would the wise God do so if they being wiser then others did think it fitter to choose the Form then to leave it at other mens will much more would he What he saith of inferring that they did appoint this or that Form from their modelling a Common Wealth is not to the purpose for that they did appoint a Form we know by History and I suppose that every one thinketh that they did wisely in so doing and that their doing so was for the good of the Republick hence we infer that it is like Christ did so seeing he sought his peoples good more then they and the Church is less able to choose for her self then those Republicks were seeing Church Matters are of spiritual concernment and so lie further out of the Road of mens Wit then the affairs of State do I yield to him that we could not know what Form Christ hath instituted but by looking into his Laws yea and but that way we could not certainly know that he hath determined any one form yet this doth not hinder but such Arguments as this may have their own weight The Testimony he bringeth out of Mr. Hooker is answered from what hath been said and I am to meet with it elsewhere He mistaketh our intent in such Arguments and falsly supposeth that the form we plead for is not found in the Bible Sect. 14. He bringeth another argument p. 191. from the similitude of a Vine which must have its Dressers and a House and a City which must have Government it was very easie for him to answer the Argument thus propounded I know not who ever did so manage it But it might have been thus improved a wise Master of a Vineyard will not let his servants do what they please but will appoint them his work in his Vineyard and a Master of a Family or a King in a Country or City will not let the Servants or Subjects chuse in what they shall be governed Ergo if the Church be a Vine a House a City and Christ be the Head and Ruler of it it is not like that he hath left the choise of the way of governing it to men but hath appointed it himself If he had thus propounded the Argument it had not been so easily answered The same way he useth the next Argument p. 192. taken from the difference of Civil and Ecclesiastical Government the one of which is called the Ordinance of man and the other is Gods Ordinance therefere though that be mutable this is not I chuse rather to frame the Argument otherwise out of his own Concession he maketh difference between these two Governments the one is for a Political the other for a spiritual end the one for a temporal the other for an eternal end the one given to men as men the other to men as Christians the one to preserve Civil Right the other to preserve an Eternal Interest c. Then however the Lord let men chuse the way of attaining political and temporal ends and provide for their own standing as men and preserve their Civil Rights yet it is strange to think that he hath left it to mens choise to take this or that way for attaining their spiritual and eternal end for procuring their standing as Christians for preserving their spiritual rights though the one be the Ordinance of man sure the other must be the Ordinance of God But the form of Church-Government is the way to attain these because Church-Government is the mean as is confessed and it cannot be acted but in a particular form and the form is the way of managing that mean and so attaining the end yea it is such a way as hath exceeding influence upon attaining these ends seeing a wrong form may more hinder than promote them man I suppose may chuse a way that may do more hurt than good it is strange then if Christ hath left this which is of such high concernment to such high ends to the will of corrupt men and this Argument may have the more weight ad hominem because this Author is often endeavouring to shape Church-Government according to the Civil which is very unsuitable to what he asserteth of their differences Sect. 15. Another argument p. 194. is if the form of Church-Government be not in Scripture determined immutably then it is in the power of the Church to make new Officers which Christ never made To this he answereth 1. These Officers are only said to be new which were never appointed by Christ and are contrary to the first appointment of Christ but one set over many Pastors is not such for besides the general practice from the first Primitive times Christ himself laid the foundation of such an Office in appointing Apostles Reply Here are many things hudled together to excuse Episcopacy from Novelty which we must examine severally 1. They are not a new Office would he say because Christ instituted such an Office viz. Apostles Reply I hope he will not say that the Office of an Apostle and of a Diocesan Bishop is the same Office for the Apostles had much power which Bishops have not and were Extraordinary Officers immediately called by God so are not Bishops and however there may be some resemblance between them yet if they be not the same Office it must be a new Office from what Christ appointed It is not the want of Similitude but the want of Identity with what hath been before that maketh a thing new neither need we enter the dispute with him what way extraordinary and what not in the Apostolick Office nor doth the Question lie in that as he alledgeth for we maintain and I think it will not be deni'd by him that the Office in complexe viz. as it did subsist in rerum natura was extraordinary and is ceased and therefore whatever Office is made up of some part of the power they had without the rest of it must be a different Office from that and so new Indeed if Christ had given them their power by halves and made the one half of it common to some Officer appointed by him to continue in the Church viz. power over Presbyters and the other half of it peculiar to them then Bishops having power over Presbyters though they had been a new Office from the Apostles and not the same yet should they have had the same Office with these others that we supposed and so had not been new simply but there being no such thing they must be in another Office than Christ ever appointed and so simply new Wherefore it is an unreasonable demand of the Author p. 195. that we must prove power over Presbyters to be extraordinary before we say it must cease For it is enough that the whole Office be extraordinary
compose differences about Church-Government To clear our way in this dispute with him let it be observed 1. That the question being only about Parity and Imparity of Pastors all other differencies in Apostolick practices that may be alledged are impertinent to this purpose 2. It helpeth not him nor harmeth our cause if we should grant that the Apostles did in some extraordinary cases vary from their ordinary course for it is what they did ordinarily and where no extraordinary cause moved them to do otherwise that we inquire about 3. Our question is not about the Government of the Church that was for a time exercised by extraordinary Officers immediately sent of God but what was the way the Apostles settled that the Church should be governed in by her Ordinary and abiding Officers Wherefore it maketh nothing for his purpose if it be made out that the Church was some times governed one way by extraordinary Officers at other times or places another way by ordinary Officers Taking these considerations along with us I come to hear the Proofs of this his proposition The first is taken p. 323. from the different state condition and quantity of the Churches planted by the Apostles and here he premiseth 3 things viz. That God did not give the Apostles equal suceess of their Labours in all places that a small number of believers did not require the same number of Officers to Teach and Govern them that a greater Church did 3. That the Apostles did settle Church-Officers according to the probability of increase of Believers and in order thereto in some great places About these I shall not controvert with him only the 2d must be understood with this distinction else we cannot grant it that a fewer number if formed into a Church-Society though it did not need as great a number of Officers of every kind as Teachers Elders Deacons yet would it need as many sorts of Officers and the reason is because all those acts are needful to be done to them which must be done to greater Congregations they must be taught ruled and their Poor cared for and therefore they must not want any of these sorts of Officers whose work these acts were I mean where such Officers could be had for Christs Institutions tye not to impossibilities From these Premisses he inferreth these two conclusions to make out his proposition the first is p. 325. That in Churches consisting of a small number of believers where there was no great probability of Increase afterwards one single Pastor with Deacons under him were only constituted by the Apostles for the ruling of these Churches On this conclusion before I come to his Proofs of it I shall make these remarques 1. Here is nothing here for the Imparity of Presbyters or the Authority of a Bishop over Presbyters if where more Presbyters could not be had one was to do the work this doth not at all say that the Apostles ever did or that we may set one over the rest where many may be had to rule the Church This conclusion then proveth nothing 2. These Deacons that here he speaketh of either had ruling power or not if he say the first I doubt if he can prove that ever any such Deacons were in the Apostolick Churches where the Deacons work was to serve not to rule that Church and if they had ruling power they were not only Deacons but ruling Elders both works being laid on the same Persons for want of men to exercise them distinctly which maketh nothing against Presbyterians If the second first I question if any instance can be given of a Church so constituted by the Apostles 2. If it was so it was necessity not choice that made them be without ruling Elders Sect. 15. But how proveth he this his conclusion by 3 or 4 Testimonies out of Clement Epiph. and others What hath he so soon forgot himself he had immediately before spent about 30 pages in proving that the Testimony of the Fathers is not sufficient to prove what was the Apostles Practice and that by making out the defectiveness ambiguity partiality and repugnancy of the Records of the succeeding Ages it is strange then that to prove this his assertion concerning Apostolick Practice he should bring no other Argument at all but such as he had set that Nigrum Theta upon Neither see I what those Testimonies prove contrary to us The Testimony of Clement saith no more than what is implyed Phil. 1.1 That the Apostles ordained Bishops and Deacons and our Author himself maintaineth that those were not by their constitution any more than Presbyters whatever they might after get by mens Institution proveth not what was Apostolick constitution For the Testimony of Epiphanius he confesseth its intricacie and obscurity and therefore by his own Argument of which before it is not to be laid weight upon but he taketh a great deal of pains to explain it and make it speak this in sum that at first there were only Bishops and Deacons by Bishops he meaneth Presbyters as appears from his Subjoyning immediately that there was neceility for Presbyters and Deacons and that by these all Ecclesiastical Offices might be performed but afterward where there was need and there were found any worthy of it there was a Bishop appointed but where there were not many to be Presbyters they were content with a Bishop and Deacons Here are 3 cases Presbyters and Deacons a Bishop and Deacons this in case of necessity where more Presbyters could not be had this Bishop as hath been shewn before could be nothing above a Presbyter none of those cross our design for the third viz. a Bishop set over Presbyters first Epiphanius doth not say it was so appointed by the Apostles but it was done it is like he meaneth by succeeding Ages 2. He doth not say that this Bishop was set over Presbyters with jurisdiction he might be meerly a praeses so there is nothing here to prove that the Apostles ever setled any thing contrary to Parity of Presbyters The Testimony out of Clem. Alexan. even with Salmasius his commentary proveth no more but that in some places were more Presbyters in some fewer in some but one His last Testimony saith nothing at all to the purpose only that the Apostles settled things by degrees not that ever they set up Bishops Sect. 16. The 2d Conclusion that he inferreth p. 332. That in Churches consisting of a multitude of Believers or where there was a probability of a great increase by preaching the Gospel the Apostles did settle a College of Presbyters whose Office was partly to govern the Church already formed and partly to labour in converting more This we close with and from it and the former Conclusion which make up his whole Argument infer the quite contrary to his design viz. That the Apostles kept a most uniform course so far as necessity did permit in setling the Government of Churches and that they setled the Government in the hands
in Divinus i.e. Presbyter Humanus i. e. c. a President or constant Moderator Diabolicus i. e. a Prelate with sole jurisdiction The indifferency of the 2d he asserteth and will not prescribe that Form used at Geneva which was without such a fixed President to other Churches but what is this to the purpose It is a pity to see a Learned Man at so much pains and lose his labour It being so as hath been shewed Mr. Still doth fouly misrepresent the state of the Controversie about Church-Government that was between the Church of England and of Geneva in Queen Elizabeths time it was not as he alledgeth whether Parity or Episcopacy were more convenient but whether Prelacy putting sole jurisdiction in the hand of a Bishop or giving him power over his Brethren were lawful Sect. 8. Next he bringeth George Prince of Anbalt Luther Melancton and Calvin professing their readiness to submit to Bishops if they would do the duty of Bishops All which amounts to no more than this That if Bishops would keep within bounds not usurp Authority over their Brethren nor use it to the destruction of Religion they might be born with but this maketh nothing for the lawfulness of Prelacy which these Men did ever detest For Jacobus Heerbrandus I am not acquainted with his Principles nor his Book Hemingius who cometh next speaketh expresly of dispares dignitatis ordines not authoritatis and so cometh not up to the thing in Question For Zepper his judgment of the necessity of a Superintendent it destroyeth our Authors Hypothesis for if it be necessary it is not indifferent If in any case such a thing be necessary it is in that case lawful nam necessitas quicquid coegit defendit in other cases it is unlawful What he saith of Bishops in some Lutheran Churches as Sweden Denmark c. doth not weigh with us knowing that they err in greater matters also What he saith of other Churches that have their Praepositi or Seniores enjoying the same power with Ancient Bishops proveth nothing of the lawfulness of Prelacy We think their way lawful and whether it be convenient to them or not we judg not but to us sad experience hath proved it most inconvenient The next thing that he insisteth on viz. Episcopal Divines holding Episcopacy not necessary it doth not concern us to Answer and so we see to what amounteâ—… the strength of these Testimonies which he would fright us with as if all Men were of his judgment Sect. 9. Having now seen of what force are our Authors Witnesses brought for the indifferency of the Form of Church-Government let us see if there can be more pregnant Authority brought for the divine Right of it I do not question but many sheets may be filled with pertinent Citations to this purpose by one better stored with Writings of our Reformed Divines and having leisure to search them I shall give some instances such as my poor Library doth afford both of Churches and of particular Divines And before the Restorers of the Truth I shall mention those famous Conservators of it in the darkest times of Antichristianism the Waldenses whom some of our Divines call Majores Nostros their Opinion in this may be seen in Waldensiâ Confes Taboritarum per Joa Lukawitz cap. 3. p. 5. Lex evangelica Jesu Christi per se sufficientissima ad regimen Ecclesiae militantis c. 14. p. 32. Nos qui pro lege liberrima Jesu Christi per se sufficienti ad regimen Ecclesiae militantis sine Ceremoniis Legis veteris ritibus humanis post adjectis scientes quia securissimum est optimum Magisterium Ecclesiae primitivae quam regebant Apostoli actus imitari We see here the sufficiency of Scripture for Church-Government asserted and that without new Laws or humane devices which could not be if the particular Form were not determined in it but left to Mens devising Also that Apostolick practice is in this a Rule to us both which militate against Mr. Stilling's Discourse I shall next bring the opinion of the French and the Dutch Churches held forth in their Confessions which I have out of Smect sect 14. The French Church Artic. 29.30 speaketh thus Credimus veram Ecclesiam gubernari debere eâ politiâ quam dominus noster Jesus Christus sancivit then it may not be such as Men think fit nor is it indifferent ita viz. aut sui in ea Pastores Presbyteri sive seniores Diaconi then Christs institution is against Bishops seeing he appointeth the rest and leaveth them out ut doctrinae puritas retineatur Credimus omnes Pastores ubicunque collocati sint eadem aequali potestate inter se esse praeditos then there can be no imparity of power sub uno illo capite solo universali Episcopo Jesu Christi The Dutch Church Art 30. thus Credimus veram hane Ecclesiam debere regi ac gubernari spirituali illa politia quam nos deus ipse in verbo suo edocuit ita ut sint in ea Pastores ac Ministri qui purè concionentur sacramenta administrent sint etiam seniores Diaconi qui Ecclesiae senatum constituant ut his veluti mediis vera Religio conservari hominesque vitiis dediti spiritualiter corripi emendari possint Tunc enim rite ordinate omnia fiunt in Ecclesiâ cum viri fideles pii ad ejus gubernationem deliguntur juxta Pauli praescriptum 1 Tim. 3. caeterum ubicunque locorum sint verbi Dei Ministri eandem atque aequalem omnes habent tum potestatem tum authoritatem ut qui sint aequè omnes Christi unici illius universalis Episcopi capitis Ecclesiae Ministri What hath ever been the opinion of the Church of Scotland about the Divine Right of Presbyterial Government is so well known that I need not mention it also what hath been the judgment of the Presbyterian Ministers of England both in the National Synod of famous memory and the Provincial Assembly of London who have written for the jus divinum of it Sect. 10. To this Truth also the famous Professors of London bear their joint Testimony Synops Pur. Theol. Disp 48. Thes 23. Nec tamen propterea concedimus à solo aliquo Episcopo sive Romano sive Eugobino ex motu proprio aut plenaria authoritate ut loquimur hanc potestatem posse vendicari sed rectorum ac Presbyterorum Ecclesiae concilium totiusque adeo Ecclesiae aut apertum aut tacitum consensum adhibendum esse ex praescripto Christi ac purioris Ecclesiae praxi asserimus And this they prove Thes 24. Because that Tell the Church cannot be understood of one Bishop Calvin is clear for us for he maketh the Officers of the Church to be by Christs Institution and sheweth who they are that he hath Instituted Instit lib. 4. c. 3. sect 4. Also c. 4. sect 1. He sheweth how in the Primitive Church they studied carefully to adhere to God's Institution in the Government of the Church And on Phil. 1.1 reproving the Usurpation of Bishops he saith Perinde ac si non omnes Presbyteri Collegae essent ad eandem vocati functionem unus sibi praetextu novae appellationis dominium in alios arripuit Sect. 11. I close with a short Answer such as it deserveth to his last Assault which is p. 416. If Prudence must be used in setling Church-Government as he saith is confessed by Independents in their Elective Synods by Presbyterians in their subordination of Courts Classical-Assemblles Episcopal Men in several things Ans All this is nothing of the particular Form of Government Parity or imparity and so nothing to the purpose We absolutely deny that That is to be setled by Prudence but by the Institution of Christ though many Circumstances in Government must be determined by Prudence guided by Scripture-light For his advice in order to Peace it containeth many good things yet cannot we fully close with it till he establish on better grounds than we have yet seen the Basis of it viz. The indifferency of the particular Form of Church-Government FINIS