culorum periodum antiquitatis praxin stravit seniorum plebis Institutio functio ut sic dicam vitae à protestantibus per Gallias Scotiam Belgiam instituta statuminanda est And Asser. Grov Ch. Scot. par 1. c. 8 9. Unpregnable and abundant Testimonies out of Antiquity are brought for this Office which seeing Mr. Stilling hath not Answered it is needless to insist on them 3. But and if in many places in the Primitive times this Office was difused it was their fault and taken notice of by the better sort Calv. in 1 Tim. 5. 17. speaking of this Office saith Hunc morem Ambrosius absolevisse conqueritur doctorum Ignavia vel potius superbia dum soli volunt eminere See Testimonies for the Antiquity of it Smect sect 15. Sect. 18. His second proof of his second Proposition viz. That the Apostles took diverse courses in Ruling Churches is p. 340. from the multitude of unfixed Officers residing in some places who managed the affairs of the Church in chief during their residence such were Apostles and Evangelists In some places saith he these were others not and in some places no Officers but these Answ. This is obviated by our 3d Observ. For the Question is only about Government by ordinary and abiding Officers and that only where they could be had of whom this proof doth not speak His 3d Proof ibid. is from the different customs observed in the Church after the Apostles times This is most inconsequent yea one might as well reason thus In after-times they set up Metropolitans and at last a Pope Ergo it was so in the Apostles times We say then That diversity in after Ages flowed from this that Men following Mr. Stilling Principles did not follow divine Institution or Apostolick practice but their own Wit and Reason Beside the diversities he here instanceth in are not to the purpose for he doth not shew us that Parity was in one place and imparity in another but that in one place the Presbyters chused their Bishop in another not Sect. 19. We come at last to his 3d proposition about Apostolick practice p. 341. viz. That a meer Apostolical practice being supposed is not sufficient of it self for the founding of an unalterable and perpetual Rite for the Form of Government in the Church which is supposed to be founded on that Practice This doctrine he laid down before par 1 c. 1. p. 23. And we examined p. _____ where I stated that question far otherwise than he seemeth here to do and indeed thâ—s proposition as here laid down might be yielded by us neither doth it nor his Arguments for it touch thâ— controversie which is andabatarum more pugnare We lay no obligation on any by a meer Apostolical Practice but by their Practice considered as done in the same case that we are in Neither 2. do we say that such practice is sufficient of it self to bind us for it hath Gods command of Imitation of which before and equal Morality of that action to us and then to concur with it in this Neither do we say 3. That their Practice doth found a Riet it doth but declare what is founded on the will of Christ as that which we must do Most of all his Arguments are obviated by what is already said The first that they did many things without intention of obliging others as going abroad to Preach the Gospel unprovided Pauls not taking wages c. This doth not touch the point seeing these things were for a peculiar reason To the same purpose is the 2d Argument p. 343. which indeed is but the same Argument that they did many things on particular occasions emergencies and circumstances as Pauls celebate Community of goods Preaching in private Houses Fields c. That which only is worth the noticing in this Argument is p. 344. That he requireth before Apostolical Practice be obligations that it be made appear that what they did was not according as they saw reason depending on the several circumstances of Time place and persons but from some unalterable Law of Christ. Answer This we are able to prove as to ruling the Churches by a Parity of Elders for they did ordinarily so practice and that where the place persons and times were not the same neither can it be shewed that ever they did otherwise i. e. set up a Bishop over Presbyters is not this sufficient ground der this Mystery of iniquity had begun to work 2 Thes. 2. 7. It is no wonder then that soon after it began to appear and when some had thus miscarried and others stuck to the Apostolical frame of things this might quickly breed a diversity 3. It will easily appear to any who readeth this Chap. that all the Authours discourse tendeth to prove that the ancient Churches thought not Episcopacy to be jure divino let them who are concerned answer him in this if they can I am convinced of the truth of what he saith But let us take a short view of the grounds on which he establisheth what he asserteth in this Chap. Sect. 2. The first is That the extent of the Power of Church-Officers did increase meerly from the enlargment of the bounds of Churches which he maketh out in 4 steps or periods The first is when Churches were the same with Christians in a whole City And here he handleth 3 things first he sheweth that the Primitive constitution of Churches was in a Society of Christians in the same City where he will have the name Church in Scripture to be only given to that not a particuler congregation meeting in one place I do not deny but the name is given as he saith because of that confederacy in discipline among divers congregations in one City yet neither the name nor the nature of a Church must be denied to a single congregation for a Church in Scripture-Language is a company met together to serve God now this agreeth well to a single Congregation seeing in it not only word and Sacraments are administred but also discipline is exercised as shall anon appear All that he saith proveth the former Use of the word but nothing against this latter 2. He speaketh of the Government of these Churches p. 352. And that 1. before Parishes or distinct Congregations were settled 2. after they were settled about which he largely disputeth when it began which is not to our purpose in both cases he saith they were ruled in common and p. 354. That it is a weak conceit to think that after the setling of Congregations every one had a distinct Presbytery to rule it and p. 356. this crumbling saith he of Church-Power into every Congregation is a thing absolutely disowned by the greatest and most Learned Patrons of Presbytery beyond the Seas as may be seen in Calv. Beza Salmasius Blondel Gerson Bucer and others I do readily yield to him that it is most probable that in times of Persecution particular congregations could not be soon settled and
can prove that Christ hath given a power to men to make them unequal whom he hath made equal to subject one to another of them to whom Christ hath given equal power to restrain yea and take quite away the exercise of ruling power in some of them to whom Christ hath given it as much as to others and to enlarge that power in some to whom Christ hath given no more than to others Which I am sure he will never be able to do Yea further it 's confessed by him that Christ hath instituted the Office of Presbyters and that he hath not instituted the Office of Prelates ruling over Presbyters Wherefore he must either say that the Church hath power to institute new Offices which I hope he will not assert and I am sure he cannot prove or that Prelacy is unlawful For that a Prelate is another Officer than a Presbyter is undeniable because the one is ruled by the other Now these of the same Office cannot be ruled by or subordinate to one another as common sense and reason will teach § 2. But to come to the Book it self My design is not a full Refutation but some brief Animadversions for private satisfaction and mine own establishment in these truths that he endeavoureth to shake Neither do I intend to meddle with the whole but only to cull out these passages that relate to Presbyterian Government and any that might infer the unsetling of that or any part of it § 3. The first thing that I meet with to be disproved is p. 2. where he asserteth a Principle that will not only shake our Faith if it be received in the point of Church-Government but which I hope he doth not intend will unsettle us in most points of Christian Religion His Principle is this That Difference in Opinion about a point and probable Arguments brought on both hands by wise and able men if it be not a matter of necessity to Salvation gives men ground to think that a final decision of the matter in Controversie was never intended as a necessary means for the Peace and Vnity of the Church of God His Opinion in this he setteth down in fewer and clearer words in the Contents of ch 1. things saith he necessary for the Churches peace must be clearly revealed the Form of Church Government is not so as appears by the remaining Controversie about it I shall first shew the danger and falsehood of this Principle and then try the strength of what he saith for the establishment of it And 1. I argue thus This Assertion destroyeth it self for if no point not necessary to Salvation be so sure that we must necessarily hold it in order to peace then this his Assertion falleth under the same condition and needeth not to be maintain'd for it is not needful to Salvation I hope they will go to Heaven that are not of his mind in this and I am confident he doth not think it so clear that no wise and able men will controvert with him about it and if it be needless in order to the Churches peace why is it here laid down as the first stone of the Foundation on which he buildeth his Irenicum but it fareth here with our Author as it doth with all other Abetters of Scepticism they attain at least so far their end as they make men question that Opinion that they labour to establish by perswading them to question every thing § 4. Secondly There is no cause at all why the Author should except from the uncertainty here asserted things that are of necessity to Salvation for if we are to think that the Lord hath so clearly revealed things not needful to Salvation which are needful to peace in the Church much rather are we to think so of things needful to Salvation which also cannot but be necessary to peace for we can have no peace with them that destroy the Foundation For it hath hitherto been a received Principle that things of necessity to Salvation are revealed with more clearness than other things And though Papists have laboured to cast a Mist upon Scripture discovery in both sorts of things that they might take all power to themselves over the Truths of God and Consciences of men in determining what is truth as Dr. Stillingfleet would darken the discovery of the circa-fundamentals of Religion that he might put the power of determining these things in the hand of the Magistrate yet Protestants have ever firmely maintained that however the Scripture speaketh darkly in some things not essential yet that the light of it is most clear in things necessary to Salvation They are not then of this mans mind who will have the things that do not so nearly relate to Salvation but are needful to peace so clearly revealed that there can remain no Controversie about them among wise and able men but excepteth from this necessity things of necessity to Salvation From what hath been said I argue thus against Dr. Stillingfleet's Principle If any things not necessary to Salvation be so necessary to be clearly revealed that we are to look upon them as not Christ's Truth if there remain a Controversie about them managed with specious Arguments on both sides among wise and able men much more things necessary to Salvation must be thus clearly revealed so that there is no truth in them if they be so controverted but the consequent is most false and absurd and overturneth all the Foundations of our Religion for have not the Arrian Soecinian Arminian and Popish Controversies been managed yea and are they not managed by the Adversaries of Truth with Learning even to admiration We must then according to this principle not take either part of these debates for truth but think that the Lord hath determined nothing in them and we must leave it to men to determine in them what they please and must embrace that Is not this a fine device to cast loose all to bring in Scepticism instead of Faith to make way for a subtle Sophister to nullifie any truth by disputing speciously against it Yet this we are to bless the Lord for that the overturners of the Government of Christ's house have no other means to cast it loose by but these that do also cast loose all our Religion which I hope will be a consideration to fix this truth the better in the minds of them who are serious and intelligent § 5. Thirdly If these things not necessary to salvation that speciously on both hands are controverted be not needful to be determined in our consciences in order to the Churches peace I ask the Author of this Assertion What things of that nature are needful to the Churches peace that we hold an opinion about them Or are there any things such or must we hesitate about all the circa-fundamentals in Religion and look on them as indifferences determinable by men if we will not be guilty of disturbing the peace of the Church I hope
this good man will not say so and yet it would necessarily follow out of this principle maintained by him for I believe he cannot instance in many things scarce if any that are not of necessity to salvation which are not controverted and that with specious pretexts For learned men when they erre use not to come off so bluntly as barely to say it is so or I think so but they bring plausible Reasons and those often pretended to be drawn from Scripture for their foulest errours If then we receive this principle we must not think it needful to the Churches peace to determine whether there be two Sacraments or seven whether there be Purgatory whether we are to pray to Saints departed whether there be power of Censure in Church-men or if all Church-power be in the Magistrate whether the Pope be the head of the Church c. for all these and such-like are controverted and there are colourable Arguments for the Errours that men maintain in these points If this our Author will not assert what reason is there that he should 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 to endeavour the Peace and Vnity of it should suspend the 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 unreasonably 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 trnth 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
one Superiour over many Churches Nothing can be questioned in this Argument except it be said that every Church here is not every congregational but Diocesan Church But this can in no wise be for there was a necessity of an Elder or Elders in every Congregational Church for the Peoples Instruction if these then did rule the Church was ruled by the Elders of Congregational Churches The next place is Act 20. 17. And from Miletus Paul sent and called the Elders of the Church These say we were Elders of the Church of Ephesus to whom in common Paul committeth the ruling of the Church vers 28. not to one Bishop over the rest so that Church was governed by Parity of Elders To this place he answereth by shewing some Probabilities for both meanings viz. That these were the Elders of Ephesus and that they were the Bishops of Asia but taketh no pains to Answer what is said on either hand only concludeth that because there is probability on both hands there is no fixed truth on either which is most detestable Scepticism for if there be Arguments for both parts sure both cannot be true seeing they are contradictory neither can both be false for the same reason for contradictoriarum altera semper est vera altera semper est falsa then it was his part either to shew that neither of the arguments prove any thing by answering to them or to hold to the one as true and not to hang between two But I prove that these Elders were the Elders of Ephesus not the Bishops of Asia 1. which Argument he mentioneth but he answereth not the Article in the Greek maketh it clear it being demonstratory doth apply his Speech to the Church which he had mentioned in particular where when it 's said that he sent to Ephesus and called for the Elders 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 it might well be translated of that Church it pointeth out that Church and no other It is an unheard of way of speaking when a particular thing or person is mentioned and the demonstrative Article joined to it that that Speech should be understood of any other but that 2. Paul sent to Ephesus for these Elders not through the several parts of Asia Ergo. They were at Ephesus not in other Churches That he did not send through other places to gather them together is evident both because the Text mentioneth sending to Ephesus not other places and it is strange if he sent through all Asia and mention be only made of sending to one place not to any other also because Paul was then in hast passing by them vers 16. wherefore 't is not like that he could stay for the convening of a Synod of Bishops from many remote parts That which is alledged by some that the Bishops of Asia did reside at Ephesus and thence were sent for by Paul is most absurd for 1. There is not the least shaddow or reason to think that non residence of fixed Officers did so soon creep into the Church Let us see any Instance or Warrant to think that any who had a fixed charge did leave it long or often or at all but upon some weighty and extraordinary emergent 2. What could be their business at Ephesus their work lay elsewhere and there they could do nothing except to meet and consult about matters of common concerment which will not infer ordinary residence there 3. The work of these Elders was particular inspection over their Flocks vers 28. over all the Flock which they could not have if they resided at Ephesus and had their charges lying up and down Asia for that probability which he bringeth for the contrary it is none at all viz. It is said vers 18. That he had been with them at all Seasons but he was not all the time in Ephesus but abroad in Asia as Act. 19. 10 22 26. Answ. at all Seasons must not be taken in such rigour as if he had never stirr'd a Foot out of Ephesus but that he had his residence and Preached most thâ—re which is evident from Act. 19. 1 9. 10. he disputed daily in the School of Tyrannus this was at Ephesus and it is said that it continued 2 years i. e. for the most part of the time he was there and yet might sometimes Preach elsewhere For the humane Testimonies he bringeth for either part I weâ—e then in the same ballance with him and shall be content to lay no stress upon them As for the 1 Tim. 3 1. which is his other place we make no Argument from it but maintain that it speaketh not of a Diocesan Bishop let them who assert the conâ—rary prove it His discourse p. 293. is a very unsavory comparing of some Philosophical Problems which cannot well be determined and therefore we may hesitate about them with points of truth revealed in Scripture as if we might also be Sceptick in these But sure the Comparison is miserably lame for 1. These do not concerne our Faith or duty as these other do and therefore there is much less hazard in Scepticism about the one than the other 2. Even in those points the motion of the Earth or Heaven the Flux and Reflux of the Sea there is some truth in them though men through darkness cannot see it neither must we say that nothing there is because there is nothing certain to us in these things or that men may impose on our belief what they please in them hence men are the more studious in searching out these Secrets and give them not over as being destitute of all objective truth But he dealeth worse with the things of Church-Government he will have no objective truth in it and no duty to lye on us in searching out the truth but that we must believe what men say of it For conclusion of what I would say to this ground of his Scepticism about Church-Government I will but mention several Scriptures on which the truth in this is built viz. That the Apostolick form was parity which Mr. Still hath not so much as touched neither need I insist on them seeing Arguments from them are established by our writers and not enervated by him One place is 1 Tim. 4. 14. where Tim. is said to be ordained by a Presbytery or company of Elders joyning with Paul in that Action this could not have been if Elders had not had a Parity of Power Another is 1 Cor. 5. 4 5. where excommunication is transacted by the Authority of a Community not of a single Person and so is the relaxing of that Sentence 2 Cor. 2. 8. 10. Also 1 Thess. 5. 12. They who ruled that Church who were over them and must be obeyed were many not one Person yea that work and the work of labouring among the People and admonishing them are made to be the business of the same Persons which is a demonstration that the Presbyters of that Church did rule in common and not a Bishop over