any who in extraordinary cases act the part of the ordinary Guides of the Church Sect. 7. I agree to the argument of Mr. Gillespy cited by the Author that unless we understand the word Church as usually it would be no easie matter to know what Christ here meaneth by the Church for seeing this was to be a standing Law in all Ages 't is not imaginable that the Lord would have us otherwise understand the terms of it than they are ordinarily used in the Bible which he intended should constantly be in his Peoples hands Neither is that of any weight which our Author opposeth to this that such as so argue would do well to consider how those to whom Christ spake should apprehend his meaning if he spake in a sense they never heard of before We consider that they may easily understand Christs words because he had often before spoken to them of the Gospel-church that was to be set up and even in this very term of a Church as Matth. 16. 19. and frequently under the notion of the Kingdom of Heaven which they might easily apprehend to be meant by the Church Wherefore the Author did not well consider what he said when he supposed this language to be unknown to the Disciples Hence all that he saith of the way of understanding Scripture in the sence of the words then common is not to the purpose for Christ had made this sense common among them Neither must we understand the word as it was then commonly apprehend among the Jews but as it was apprehended among Christs ordinary Hearers who were in expectation of another Church and another way of Government in it to be set up than was then among the Jews I find no more in the Author that is argumentative either against our opinion of this Text or for his own He concludeth p. 228. that this place though it speaks not of Church-government yet it may have some influence on it by way of Analogy viz. in proving 1. Gradual Appeals 2. Church-censures 3. The lawfulness of Excommunication This he yieldeth at least that something of Church-Government may be inferred from this place then ex concessis it is not so impertinent to this purpose as he would have made us believe in the beginning of this Chapter Sect. 8. But let us see if we can draw any more out of it than he will yield us We have already proved it to be directly meant of Church-Government and to give Rules for the right managing of it now I assert that it doth implicitly determine the form of Church-Government viz. That it ought to be by Parity not Episcopacy which I thus make out The first Authority before which the complaint of the grieved party is to be brought is the Church and it is also the last but if the Church were governed by Bishops this should not be Ergo The Church ought not to be governed by Bishops The Major is clear for after secret and private admonition which are not authoritative immediately succeedeth Tell the Church sure this Church must be that Authority which we must go to prima instantia and also that which must finally decide the matter seeing Excommunication doth immediately so low upon Disobliging this Authority The Minor I prove thus in the Episcopal way the complaint must be brought to the Bishop or to his Delegate or Delegates which is all one as to the matter of Authority and he must be the last that must determine and on disobedience to him followeth Excommunication but the Bishop is not the Church Ergo In the Episcopal way complaints cannot be made to the Church nor doth the Church finally decide the matter The Minor of this last Syllogism is evident for neither the naâ—ure of the word nor Scripture-Use will bear that one Man shall be called the Church If it be said that Episcopacy be so modelled as the Bishop with the Presbyter may judg of the offence and they may well be called the Church Answ. In that case either the Presbyters have a decisive Vote as well as the Bishop or they be only his Advisers In the first case the Bishop is only a Praeses which is not that Episcopacy pleaded against though we judg it inconvenient In the 2d the Bishop is the only Power and therefore there is no such Church as here meant for the Church here is a Church cloathed with Authority whom the party ought to hear i. e. obey and for contumacy against which he is Excommunicated but the Bishop and his counsel is not such a Church for his counsel hath no Authority and himself cannot make a Church and therefore both taken together make no Church having Authority CHAP. VI. HERE Mr. Stilling doth undertake to lay aside Apostolical practice from being a pattern for us in the matter of Church-Government What success he hath in this attempt we now examine His two main scopes in this Chapter are that it cannot be known what the practice of the Apostles was in this and that if it were known it is no binding example to us which desperate assertions do not a little reflect upon the Scripture and tend to the casting loose the Government of the Church The latter of them I have spoken to before and purpose to examine what he saith for it Concerning the former I shall premise but this to our trying of his proofs that it is very strange the Spirit of God in Scripture hath written so much of their practice both Historically and implied it in Doctrinal assertions and Precepts if for all this we cannot know what it was which if it do not accuse the Scripture-relation of things of great imperfection I know nothing for I am sure the Scripture doth purposely set down much of their practice both in Preaching administration of Sacraments ordination of Officers directing these Officers in their behaviour in the House of God censures and other parts of Government if yet we cannot know by Scripture what was their way in Ruling the account given of these things must be very imperfect I believe it would be imputed to any Writer of the History of a Church if out of his History could not be gathered what was the Government of that Church shall we then think that the Sacred Writers who have undertaken to give us an account of the acts of the Apostles are so deficient especially many of the writings of the Apostles themselves being added by the same Spirit out of which much may be gathered to this purpose But let us hear how he makes out this his strange opinion I insist not on what he writeth of the Apostles Commission I confess the form of Government is not expressed in it though we have ground to think that when Christ chargeth them to teach his People to observe all he commanded them Matth. 28. 20. that it was his Will that they should not leave so great a matter as is the form of Church-Government to mens Will but that his
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 much certainty as amounteth to Plerophory and doth dispell all degrees of darkness and doubting this we assert not that every one may attain such is the darkness of Mens minds neither is it needful to this that we look upon what the Apostles did as being juris divini If we mean so much certainty as doth incline the mind to the one part and not leave it in suspence we assert that this may be attained in reference to what is in Question 2. The matter in debate is very obscurely if not fraudulently expressed by these words what course the Apostles took in governing Churches the Question is not whether we can know every thing that they did in this for many particulars are comprehended in this general expression but whether we can know if the setled Presbyters acting in Parity or Bishops acting with authority over Presbyters as the ordinary Officers of the Church 3. It is not fair dealing to imply as this Proposition doth that we infer the only divine Right of one form from bare Apostolical practice he knows that we walk upon other grounds viz. we take Christs command of imitating the Apostles the Parity between our case and theirs which may make the morality of our practice to be the same with theirs 4. It is not the one form which several parties imagine to come nearest to Apostolical practice but that which is proved to be really the same with it we plead for it 's not mans imaginations but Scriptural grounds which we establish that correspondency upon we are asserting between Apostolical practice and what we would have to be now in the Church The antithesis then which we maintain against this his Proposition is this That they who search the Scripture may come to be satisfied on good grounds whether the Apostles in planting Churches did setle Presbyters acting in Parity or Bishops ruling over Presbyters as their ordinary Officers so as they may considering the duty laid on us to follow them and the parity of our case with theirs infer the divine Right of that one Form of these two which was used by the Apostles For proof of this our antithesis I refer to the consideration laid down p. 184 185. about the perfection of Scripture-history and its design to instruct us in this point which doth so far prevail with me that I look upon the Authors Proposition as such a reflexion on Scripture that any but a Papist may be ashamed of To this I add that the arguments brought for Presbyterial Government by the Assertors of it do evidently destroy the Authors Proposition and do establish our Antithesis which seeing he doth not intend nor endeavour to answer we need not insist upon A further confirmation of our Antithesis shall be to take off the arguments that he hath brought for his Proposition which I now come to Sect. 11. His first argument is p. 287. from the equivalency of the names and doubtfulness of their signification from which the form of Government used in the new Testament should be determined He saith That it is hotly pleaded on both sides that the form of Government must be derived from the importance of the names Bishop and Presbyter and that there can be no way to come to a determination what the certain sense of these names is in Scripture He maketh out the uncertainty by laying down four opinions about the signification of these names and from this variety of interpretation inferreth that we cannot know what sense they are to be taken in Ans. 1. when he saith that it is pleaded on both sides that the form of Government must be derived from the names of Bishop and Presbyter this is a misrepresentation for 1. There be arguments from which it might well be derived though these names should never be mentioned 2. When we dispute from these Names it is not from the bare force of the word but from this that the Scripture doth often apply these names to the same thing never to divers Officers in the Church and therefore there is no ground for asserting the difference of Bishop and Presbyter This is a surer argument than what can be drawn from the importance of Names Answ. 2. It is most false and injurious to the Spirit of God speaking in his word to say that there can be no way to determine what is the certain sense of these names in Scripture We must then say that the Spirit of God speaketh that which cannot be understood if he use names and words to express some thing to us and it is impossible to know what is meant by them When we hear of Bishops and Presbyters in any place of Scripture either we must say that these words signifie nothing or that they mean somewhat but no man can know what it is or that we may come to know what is meant by them The former two are foul reflexions on the Author of holy Scripture yea it were a reflexion on a Man to speak or write in a Book designed for instruction that which either hath no meaning or such as cannot be known The 3d contradicteth our Authors Assertion His proof of the uncertainty of the signification of these Names we have met with before in the like case it is a most unhappy and inconsequential reason Men have divers ways understood these words of the Holy Ghost Ergo they cannot be understood at all They must have a meaning and it is our duty to search it out however Men differ about it There are better Reasons brought by Presbyterians to prove that these two
Names signifie the same thing which was incumbent on this Author to answer and not to shift the matter with saying that other Men think otherwise I shall give but this instance or hint which may satisfie any what is the meaning of these words in Scripture Tit. 2. The Apostle leaveth in Crete Titus to ordain Elders or Presbyters verse 5. and telleth him how they must be qualified verse 6 and giveth this reason why they must have such qualifications verse 7. for a Bishop must be blameless If a Bishop were another thing than a Presbyter to what purpose were this reason here brought Ergo they are one and the same thing And if any affirm that these words signifie different things in any place of Scripture let him prove it and we shall yield the cause I might also shew that the same Office and work is every where in Scripture laid on both these and that never any thing is given to the one but what is given to the other but this hath been done and other arguments managed fully by our Writers against Episcopacy neither hath Mr. Stilling had the confidence to answer them though destroying this his Assertion and therefore I shall supersede this labour For the name of Angels of the Churches the argument brought from it is not ours but our opposites Sect. 12. His 2d Argument for the uncertainty of Apostolical practice p. 290. is That the places of Scripture most in controversie about the form of Government may be without any incongruity understood of either of the different Forms which he maketh out by going through the several places The first is Acts 11. 30. where it is said That the relief for the Brethren of Judea was sent to the Elders There is nothing here saith he to shew whether there were the local Elders of Jerusalem or the Bishops of the several Churches of Judea Answ. I wonder why he should have brought this as the first or as one of these few Scriptures that he undertaketh to answer for the most part of the most pungent Scriptures against his design he doth not so much as mention for I think it is very little insisted on by either party nor can I remember that I have met with it as brought to prove either Parity or imparity Yet I do not doubt but at least some probability may be hence brought that the Apostolick Churches were governed by the Parity of Elders for which I lay down briefly these grounds First The Elders here spoken of are the Governors of the Church this he doth not deny 2dly They were the Governors of the Church of Jerusalem This he saith is not sure for they might be the Bishops of the Churches of Judea But against this I argue 1. It is not enough to say they might be but what ground is there to think that they were the Bishops of Judea we bring probable grounds for what we assert but what can be said for the contrary It is a bold way of expounding Scripture to say such a sense it may have when there is no ground to think that it hath such a sense but some ground to the contrary 2. However the Relief ought to be sent to all the Churches of Judea yet it is delivered at Jerusalem to be sent abroad for it is delivered to these Elders by Barnabas and Paul whom it is not like they sent through the several Churches of Judea 't is spoken of as one single act of theirs delivering the others to a company of Elders met together Now it is not imaginable that all the Bishops of Judea were met together on this occasion for what needed such a Convention for receiving Alms Yea we have no ground to think that it was so natural to them before-hand as that they could meet about it Neither hath that conceit of some any probability that these Bishops did reside at Jerusalem such Men did not begin so soon to slight their particular Charge but of this after These Elders then were the Elders of Jerusalem 3. We find a company of Elders ordinarily at Jerusalem not only Acts 15. 6. Which might be upon the solemn occasion of the Council but Act. 21. 18. That these were the Elders of Judea come up with their flocks to keep the Feast of Pentecost as Mr. Still guesseth is a most irrational conceit for though many of the Jews were zealous of the Law shall we think that the Apostles had set Teachers over them who were no better instructed in the Gospel than so And besides these believing Jews ver 20. who are said to be zealous of the Law can neither be proved to have been then present at Jerusalem for they might hear of Paul's condescendency to their Customs though they were not there neither that they were those of the Country of Judea they might be of Jerusalem it self but I incline rather to the first Now we find not any other company of all the Elders of Judea met in one place these were then the Elders of Jerusalem 4. It is then observed both by the ordinary gloss and by Lyra in loc That this famine was mainly like to be in Jerusalem the Believers there being spoiled of their movable goods in the persecution about Stephen and therefore this Relief was chiefly to them Ergo they are the Elders of Jerusalem which here received it Now from these grounds it easily followeth what we intend viz. If there was a company of Elders who were Rulers of the Church at Jerusalem then this Church of the rest there is the same reason was not governed by a Bishop but by Presbyters acting in Parity It is strange if the Elders of the Church should be spoken of and no notice taken of My Lord Bishop if there were any such person in such a matter Sect. 13. The 2d place is Act. 14. 23 when they had ordained them Elders in every Church to which he joineth the 3d Tit. 1. 5. that thou shouldest ordain Elders in every City Of which places he saith that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifie no more but Ecclesiatim and oppidatim so that the places may well be understood of ordaining one Elder in every Church and City or of more but doth not determine whether one or more were ordained in them But granting all that he alledgeth a strong Argument for our purpose may be brought from these places thus there was at least in every Church one Elder in the Apostles times and such an Elder as was also a Bishop and had governing Power over the Church as appeareth by comparing vers 7. of Tit. 2. with this vers 5. But there could not be in every Church a Diocesan Bishop ruling over Presbyters for one of these are over many Churches Ergo. The Church was then governed by the Elders of the several Churches acting in Parity for if every Church had its Elder or Elders and these all were Rulers then the Rule was not in the hand of
juris naturalis 1. That there be a distinction of persons and a superiority both of power and order in some over the rest 2. That the persons so above others have respect paid them sutable to the nature of their imployment cap. 5. The third thing is that all things either pertaining to the immediate worship of God or belonging to the Government of the Church be performed with the greatest solemnity and decency that may be cap. 6. Fourthly that there be a way agreed upon to determine and decide all the controversies arising in the Church which immediately tend to the breaking of the peace and unity of it Where he pleadeth for the definitive sentence in the major part where power is equal and for liberty of appeals where there is subordination as being of natural right and that this subordination must be in a Society consisting of many Companies or Congregations cap. 7. Fifthly that all who are are admitted unto this Society must consent to be governed by the laws of that Society cap. 8. Sixthly that in a well-ordered Society and so in the Church every offender against the rules of that Society must give an account of his actions to the Governours of that Society and submit to the censures of it according to the Judgment of the Officers of it All this we accept of as truth but how this last doth consist with his putting all power of jurisdiction in the hand of the Magistrate and leaving the Church-Officers only power of Preaching and Administring the Sacraments of which before I cannot understand So much for the first part of his Irenicum PART II. CAP. 1 2. § 1. IN his second part we have also some concessions to be taken notice of as cap. 2. p. 154. that there must be a Form of Government as necessary not by Nature only but by a Divine Law This we receive as truth and do thus improve it ad hominem The Author cannot shew us any express Law in Scripture commanding that there be a Form of Government in the Church Neither can any Scripture ground of this truth be brought but what is drawn from Apostolick practice they had a Form of Government ergo so must we seeing it is as needful to us as it was to them Now if this be so why doth the Author dispute so much against our reasoning from Apostolick practice where the case is alike for this particular Form of Government as being established by Divine Law If their practice be a sufficient evidence of a Divine Law beside the Law of Nature for this that there be a Form why is it not as significant of a Divine Law for this that this is the Form where the case of them and us is alike § 2. We receive also as a concession p. 157. that there is a Divine Warrant for a National Church and for a National Form of Church-Government Also cap. 2. he concedeth that the Government of the Church ought to be administred by Officers of Divine Appointment is of Divine Right Where in one word he destroyeth unawares all that he saith for maintaining the lawfulness of Episcopal Government for he doth not deny that Bishops as ruling over Presbyters and having more power than their Brethren are of Humane Constitution and so they cannot be Officers of Divine appointment If so then by this Concession the Church ought not to be ruled by them and so Episcopal Government is unlawful I know not if he did foresee this Argument taken out of himself But in explaining his Concession he would fain seem to say some other thing than he hath indeed said For he saith that he here taketh the Church for the Members of the Church So that his meaning is there must be a standing perpetual Ministry And this he proveth largely This doth no ways explain what he hath said For it is one thing that it be Divine Appointment that there are Officers and another thing that these Officers be such as God hath appointed Jeroboam when he made Priests of the lowest of the People kept Divine Institution so far that he made Priests and did make that work common to all And yet his Priests were not Officers of Divine Appointment So neither is the Church ruled by Officers of Divine Appointment though there be Officers who rule which is Divine Appointment except these Officers be such as God hath Instituted and not such as men have devised And besides this the Law of Nature dictateth that there should be Rulers in the Church distinct from the Ruled as he had formerly observed Wherefore he must here either trifle or say some more viz. that the Lord must appoint these sorts of Officers that should govern his Church for the Author is here speaking of what is of Divine positive Right having formerly shewed what is of Divine Natural Right § 3. In the third Chap. we have the Question stated in speaking of the Church as comprehending many particular Congregations and so excluding the Independent way from this Competition he compareth these two forms of Government viz. 1. The particular Officers of several Churches acting in equality of power called a Colledge of Presbyters 2. A superiour order above the Ministry having the Power of Jurisdiction and Ordination belonging to it Now the Question is not whether of these cometh nearest to the primitive pattern But whether either of them be setled by Divine Right so as that the Church is bound to obseeve it He holds the Negative We the affirmative and we say that the former of these two is Juris Divini § 4. For proving his opinion he undertaketh to enervate all the Pleas which are made for the Divine Right of either of these Five he proposeth viz. 1. A former Law standing in force under the Gospel 2. Some plain institution of a new Law under the Gospel 3. The obligatory Nature of Apostolical practice 4. The general sence of the primitive Church 5. The Judgement of the chief Divines and Churches since the Reformation Of these he discourseth severally And we shall give our sence of them as in following him we come at them But first I must here note a few things 1. It is an injurious way of stateing the Question about this Divine Right to exclude any who put in for it from the liberty of Competition Now he knoweth that others besides these plead a Divine Right of their way as Erastians will have the keys given by Christ to the Magistrate Independents to the Community or at least the Officers of a particular Church Popery is not excluded seeing it standeth on the same bottom with Episcopacy though I think the Resolution of the question about Divine Right might have laid both these aside yet I think the stating of it might have taken them in and they might have a fair hearing lest some by seeing Presbytery and Episcopacy laid aside as of no Divine stamp might be tempted to take of either of the other two for Christs
than then where there were in one City more Christians then could meet in one place they were ruled only in Common yea and had their meetings for worship occasionally as they could Also we grant that when Congregations were settled the several Congregrations in one City were ruled by one common Presbytery made up of the Officers of them all but that they had not their distinct Presbyters that ruled them severally in subordination to this superior Presbyters we utterly deny and I look upon it as a too supercilious assertion to call this a weak conceit-seeing it is well known that it hath been the Judgment of men with whom for ability I think Mr. Still modesty will not suffer him to compare himself But what ever be of the ability of them who own it there is reason for it so weighty as may excuse it from weakness which is this Single Congregations meeting ordinarily together for the worship of God cannot but have many affairs that do only concern them not the other Churches or Congregations in the same City as admission or exclusion of their members from the Lords Supper rebuking them consulting about the time and ordering of their Administration c. 'T is very unfit to bring all these things in prima instantia to the Presbytery that ruleth in common This I confirm out of what himself hath written p. 368. He saith that Country Churches had their own rulers who ruled them though with subordination to those in the City is there not the same reason why particular Congregations though in City should have their Rulers 't is as really inconvenient to bring every matter of a City-Congregation at the first hand to the common Presbyters as it is to bring the matters of a Country Parish to it Yet we acknowledge that it is to be ordered according as it conduceth most to the good of the Church neither if we should yield all that he saith is it any thing against the Divine Right of Parity What he saith of these worthy Divines disowning this Power of particular Congregations we have cause to suspend our belief of it till he bring some testimony of their own writings to prove it which he hath not so much as essaid It is like they were against Independent Power of Particular Congregations not their subordinate Power for the Testimonies that he bringeth they prove no more than what we have granted viz. That the Congregations were ruled in common not that they had no particular Government in each of them as any may easily see by considering them Neither is it any wonder that the records of Antiquity speak of the acts of those greater not of the lesser and Congregational Presbyteries seeing matters coming before the latter were of so private concernment such as use not often to be so much taken notice of The 3d thing he speaketh of in this first step of the growth of Churches is what Relation the Churches in several Cities had one to another and to the lesser City that were under them and here he maintaineth that Metropolitans are not of Divine Right to which we agree I add that in the first and more pure Primitive times they had no Being at all as is clearly made out by Diocl. Altar Damasc. c. 2. Where he sheweth that Justine and Jreneus have nothing of the different degrees of Bishops and that Cyprian in the middle of the third Century doth often assert their Parity The second step is p. 368. When Churches took in the Villages and Territories adjoining to that Citie he saith that the City-Presbyters did Preach in these places and adjoined the Converts to the City-Church till after when they were increased in Villages they got peculiar Officers set over them who did rule them yet with subordination to the City-Church This last I only dislike neither do I see it proved by him for the Titles of matrix ecclesia et Cathedra principalis signifie no more but a greater dignity and primacy of Order not of Jurisdiction What he saith of that Eulogie sending abroad consecrated pieces of bread doth not prove the point and also it was a superstitious custome the bad improvement of it appeareth in the Popish adoration of their Hostia His next step is p. 372. When Churches did associate in one Province where he speaketh of Provincial Synods once a year and sheweth that no Bishop had power over another but that their Honour depended on their Sees Thence he cometh to the last step when the 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-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
ut Rector in Academia reliquis Collegis this he thinketh was lawful and yet setteth this note upon that practice in the same Sect. Qua de re Hieronymi tum alibi tum in Epist. ad Evagr. in Commentar Epist. ad Tit. c. 10. Narratio sententia nobis probatur dicentis totum hoc magis ex consuetudine quam ex dominicae dispositionis veritate profectum esse Which is as much as to say He thought it rather somewhat tolerable through necessity than allowable Which small glance at the tolerableness of a Precedency in the Church if it may pass for so much was not well taken by other Worthy Divines as appeareth by Zanchius's own observations on this his Confession which Mr. Stilling taketh notice of but passeth what might make against him for Magnus quidem vir as Zant. calleth him who was well satisfied with the rest of his Confession excepteth this which he had said of the Arch-Bishops and Hierarchie and that not only as what did dispease himself but was unsutable to the harmony of confessions that the Protestant Churches were then drawing up as appeareth by a part of an Epistle of that Magnus vir to Zan. which he inserteth to the Preface to his Observations So that it seems this was generally disliked by Protestant Divines contrary to what Mr. Stilling would make us believe viz. That all the Protestant Churches thought the form of Government indifferent All which being laid together let any then judg what great advantage Mr. Stilling's cause hath received from this Testimony of Zanchie Especially if we consider with what Weapon Zan. defendeth this his Opinion viz. That it was generally practised by the Ancient Church and he would not take upon him to disallow them as may be seen in his Observations on Chap. 25. of his Confessions We see he bringeth no better Warrant than the practice of Men who might and did in many things err But Mr. Stilling telleth us of the same Opinion of Zan. de 4to praec loc 4. qu. 2. p. 943 c. and indeed he teacheth the same thing but with some advantage to our design for after he had made the ordinary Officers to be of three sorts viz. Pastors and Doctors and Ruling-Elders whose Office he proveth from Scripture and asserteth as the Opinion of the Reformed Divines generally and Deacons and had proved at length p. 950 951 952. Presbyters and Bishops to be the same in Scripture He sheweth p. 952 953. That in after-Ages one of the Presbyters was set over the rest but addeth to qualifie it p. 953. Idcirco damnari haec piae vetustatis ordinatio consuetudo non potest modo plus sibi authoritatis non usurpet Episcopus quà habent reliqui Ministri ut recte monet Hieronymus Here he overturneth all Mr. Stilling's design for such a Bishop is but a meer President He thinks he hath gain'd another Testimony from M. Bucer whom Zan. in those his observations citeth but Mr. Stilling hath not told us wherein Bucer speaketh to his purpose wherefore take this account of Bucer's Opinion out of Zanch. He citeth two large Testimonies of Bucer the first is out of his Commentary on the Ephes. where he speaketh of seven kinds of Teaching viz. By Reading Interpretation Instruction Doctrina Exhortation Catechisms Disputing private Admonition from which he saith That in the Ancient Church they brought in seven kinds of Teachers Now what is this to the Parity or imparity of Ministers He speaketh nothing here of setting a Lord-Bishop over his Brethren as a thing lawfully practised in the ancient Church Yea if we consider his Discourse well we shall find that these were not divers Offices but the work of the Pastors divided among more where there were many Officers in one Church yet so as all might exercise all these Duties and so here is no multiplication of Offices beyond Christ's Institution Though I do not deny that this distributing of the work of Ministers did afterwards begin to be looked upon as making several orders of Officers but this he doth not approve of The second Testimony of Bucer is out of his de Discipl Clerical The sum of which is this for the words are too long to be transcribed That in the Ancient Church they set up a Bishop among the Presbyters Vt Consul inter Senatores this is devolving their Power into his hands which Mr. Still pleadeth for That these Bishops and Presbyters did meet when occasion required in Synods that one was over the Synod to convocate and moderate it this is not to have Jurisdiction over the rest who was called Metropolitan from the chief City where he used to reside then over the Metropolitans were set up Patriarchs but behold how careful he is to protest against imparity as to Jurisdiction of whom he saith His tamen Primatibus Episcopis nihil omnino juris erat in alios Episcopos aliasve Ecclesias ultra quod dixi cuique Metropolitae in Ecclesias atque Episcopos suae provinciae Which we took notice before was to convocate and moderate the Synod At last he sheweth how among these Patriarchs the Bishop of Rome was set up as Chief and then how all good Order went to ruine Now let this Testimony be considered and we shall hope for more advantage by it than Mr. Stilling could expect From it we draw these two Conclusions 1. That Bucer looked upon setting up a Precedent over Presbyters as the greatest length that the Primitive Church did or could go towards the making of imparity among Ministers 2. That even this their practice though not unlawful in it self yet is so inconvenient that it was the Method and Mean that Antichrist got into his Chair by Sect. 5. He cometh next to the French Divines and beginneth with Fregevile whose Testimony we think not worth the Answering seeing as Mr. Still confesseth he was Episcopal His opinion did not suit well with the principles of that Church he lived in as we shall see after The next is Blondel that learned writer for Presbyters as he is called whose words cited by Mr. Still are not at all to the purpose as any may see at first view seeing he saith no more but that it is in the Churches Power to make a perpetual Precedent or not For Bochartus his opinion that neither Presbyterialis nor Episcopalis ordo is juris divini if he mean the difference between them in jurisdiction and not only in Precedency I see not how it can be defended and not having his Book I cannot determine how consistent it is with his own principles For Amiraldus whom he bringeth next his design of Union with the Lutherans I believe did either stretch his opinion or made him stretch his affections to an excess of condescendency which cannot be excused but from his good Intention Sect. 6. Our Author cometh next to those who look on Parity as the Primitive Form and yet allow Episcopacy as a very Lawful and usefull
constitution Concerning those I premise 2 general Remarques 1. That what these worthy Divines say to this purpose is to be understood not of Episcopus Princeps but Praeses according to that distinction very common among them This we must hold as only consistent with their principles till the contrary be proved out of their own writings 2. That many things said by them to this purpose were the over reaches of their desire to be one with them who differed from them in this but agreed in most things as the Lutherans and some English Divines they did often as Smect saith of Spanhem to the same purpose p. 65. deliver a Complement rather than their Judgment But to come to particulars he beginneth with Cracanthorp who excuseth all the Reformed Churches from Aerianism because they held not Imparity to be unlawful But this man was a Son of the Church of England as they speak and wrote in her defence against Ant. de Domin wherefore his Testimony of the opinion of the Reformed Churches is not to be taken being willing to have them all think as he did They are better defended from siding with Aerius by Smect p. 79. where it is proved that Aerius was condemned for his Arianism and other Errors but not for holding the Divine Right of Parity and that Jerome Augustus Sedulius Primatius Chrisostome Theodoret Oecumenius Theophylact were of the same opinion with Aerius in this Next he bringeth the Augustane confession of the Testimony of which I have these 3 things to say 1. This was not a confession of them who are ordinarily called the Reformed Churches but of the Lutherans for at the same meeting at Augusta did Zuinglius and the Helvetians give in their confession apart by themselves wherefore it is no wonder if these worthy men who were a reforming but had not attained to that pitch of it which others had did retain some small tincture of the way according to which they had been bred in this point 2. Luther himself was not well pleased with this confession as appeareth by the Relation of Pezelius who Mellifie Histor. par 3. p. 336. saith thus Autor vero confessionis cum Luthero qui in Pontifioiis concessum Stomachabatur confessionem rudem magis magisque ne spiritum extingueret limabat poliebat et duriuscula fermentumque vetus redolentiaexpurgabat via enim justi sicut aurora lucere pergit usque ad meridiem id quod ex ipsa apologia apparet 3. All that is said in this confession is no more but an expression of their desire to conform and condescend to the Papists in the Primitive order of the Church but this was no more but the Precedency of Bishops the confession speaketh not of the Lordly power of Bishops as it then stood that they could yield to that so that even the furthest they go in their complemental condescendency doth not help Mr. Still 's cause who pleadeth for the sole jurisdiction of Bishops as lawful Sect. 7. In the next place he is not ashamed to force Calvin to speak for the lawfulness of Episcopacy which he could never comport with while he lived He bringeth his Instit. lib. 4. c. 4. sect 1. 4. in both which Sections he alledgeth no more out of him but this That the ancient Bishops had almost nothing in their Canons which was beside the Word of God and that they used no other form of Governing the Church than was prescribed in the Word What doth this help his Cause The Ancient Bishops in Calvins judgment were no more but Praesides These he saith were not constituted beside the word of God This is nothing to the scope of our Authors Discourse I hope after to shew that Calvin was far from His mind At present let it suffice to observe that the very words cited by Mr. Still do make against him For when Calvin saith Si rem omisso vocabulo intuemur reperiemus veteteres Episcopos non aliam regendae ecclesiae formam voluisse fingere ab ea quam deus verbo suo praescripsit It is not evident that he supposeth God in his Word to have prescribed a form of Church-Government And 2dly That he asserteth that the Ancient Bishops if we look to the thing and do not understand the name Bishop as now it is used for the Prelate did stick close to this Form what could be more directly against Mr. Still Neither is he more happy in the citing of Beza for him for Beza's distinction of Bishop is well known 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 Anhalt 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 amounteth the strength of these Testimonies which he would fright us with as