<!DOCTYPE ETS PUBLIC "-//UMDLPS//DTD EEBOPROOF 2.0//EN">
<ETS>
<TEMPHEAD>
<REVDESCR>
<CHANGE>
<DATE>2011-04-29</DATE>
<RESPSTMT>
<NAME>Holly (Beeman) Smith</NAME>
<RESP>MURP</RESP>
</RESPSTMT>
<ITEM>Checklist:
x Add TEMPHEAD, change DATE, validate
x Add DIV TYPEs, validate
x Review structure, use FRONT, BODY, BACK or rarely GROUP
x Check PB placement and completeness, ensure sequence of N=""
x Proof title page(s)
x Check HEAD TRAILER ARGUMENT EPIGRAPH OPENER CLOSER SIGNED SALUTE BYLINE
x Check ^, oe, abq, italic I / J, _Initals, &amp;c.
x Check # @ -- UNCLEAR LB FIGURE
x Check E&s;q; by searching ABBR
x Check q; startq endq Q&#62;
x Check &punc;
x Check GAPs
x Correct illegibles from proofsheet
x Correct errors from proof sample
x Check illegible page, para, line, span, word, dollar signs
x Final validate and check

Corrected [ ] illegible groups out of [ ].
Converted [ ] illegible groups to GAP DESC="illegible".
DONE</ITEM>
</CHANGE>
</REVDESCR>
</TEMPHEAD>
<EEBO>
<IDG S="marc" R="UM" ID="B05064">
<STC T="W">R2223</STC>
<BIBNO T="umi">99825221</BIBNO>
<VID>180313</VID>
</IDG>
<TEXT LANG="eng">
<FRONT>
<DIV1 TYPE="title page">
<PB REF="1" MS="y">
<P>A MODEST ANSWER TO Dr. <HI>STILLINGFLEET</HI>'S IRENICUM:</P>
<P>By a Learned Pen.</P>
<Q><P>Sed hoc quidem affirmare non vereor, quod heu nimium tri|&s;tis Experientia jampridem docuit, &s;en&s;im inter eodem &amp; pari munere &s;acro fungentes, ordinem Divinum, in gra|dum humanum, &amp; hunc gradum, ruptis verorum puro|rum Canonum vinculis, in tyrannidem manife&s;tam, &amp;, &s;i re&s;titutam Eccle&s;iam malumus, abolendam eva&s;i&s;&s;e.</P>
<BIBL><HI>Theod. Bezae Re&s;p.</HI> ad <HI>Sarav.</HI> de <HI>Mini&s;tr. Evang. grad. cap. 15.</HI> &agrave; calce.</BIBL></Q>
<P><HI>LONDON,</HI> Printed for <HI>Richard Janeway</HI> in <HI>Queens-Head</HI>-Alley in <HI>Pater-no&s;ter</HI>-Row, 1680.</P>
</DIV1>
<DIV1 TYPE="notice">
<PB REF="2">
<PB REF="2">
<HEAD>ADVERTISEMENT.</HEAD>
<P>THe Reader is de&s;ired to Correct the Mi&s;take of the Printer, in calling &s;o Reverend an Antago|ni&s;t by the name of Mr. <HI>Stillingfleet,</HI> in&s;tead of Dr. <HI>Stillingfleet,</HI> in &s;o great a part of the Book. And as for an Epi|&s;tle, though there was one provided by another hand, yet an accident prevent|ing its Publi&s;hing with the Book, the Writer thereof is much better &s;atisfied, on &s;econd thoughts, with its &s;uppre&s;&s;i|on: finding it no ea&s;ie matter to &s;ay any thing worthy of the renowned Au|thor; and &s;o Learned a Work, that hath had the peru&s;al and approbation
<PB REF="3">of as worthy and skilful Divines in the Controver&s;ie of Church-Government, as are of their Age. <HI>Judicium &s;it penes lectorem.</HI></P>
</DIV1>
</FRONT>
<BODY>
<DIV1 TYPE="text">
<PB REF="3">
<HEAD>Animadver&s;ions on Dr. <HI>Stillingfleet's</HI> Irenicum, <HI>&amp;c.</HI></HEAD>
<DIV2 N="1" TYPE="chapter">
<HEAD>CHAP. I.</HEAD>
<P>THIS Book, though &s;et off with the &s;peci|ous Title of an <HI>Irenicum,</HI> and carrying in its Face the pretence of a Laudable De|&s;ign, <HI>viz.</HI> the healing of the dangerous Wounds and &s;ad Divi&s;ions of the Church at this time prevailing, will, upon due Examination, I &s;uppo&s;e, be found an un&s;uitable Salve for the&s;e Sores, and to mend our rents, as they &s;ay <HI>Tinkers</HI> do, by making a greater rent in&s;tead of mending a le&s;&s;er. For in&s;tead of a Debate about particular Forms of Govern|ment, it bringeth in another Debate, whether there be any Form in&s;tituted of Chri&s;t, whether we mu&s;t &s;earch the will of Chri&s;t about managing Church-Af|faires in his Word, or be content with what is the will of man? Which Controver&s;ie is like to be harder in de|termining, and more &s;tiffly agitated than the other; for &s;ure it is harder to per&s;wade them, who would take the word of God for their rule, that <HI>Chri&s;t hath not ap|pointed any one Form of Government in his Hou&s;e,</HI> than that <HI>he hath not appointed this or that.</HI> By this device we are ca&s;t loo&s;e of all hold where we may fix, and there &s;hall be no end of Contention, at lea&s;t among them, who con&s;ult &s;o as to determine &s;ome one Form of all the&s;e, which are thought to be lawful; and when they have determined, the People, on whom they impo&s;e it, have a very un&s;ure bottom to &s;ettle their Con&s;ciences upon in this matter, that doth &s;o nearly concern Reli|gion,
<PB N="2" REF="4">to wit, nothing but the Judgment and Will of man, which is often wrong, and led by Intere&s;t, and at be&s;t is fallible and cannot guide us certainly in that, which plea&s;eth God. Wherefore this Authors Opini|on &s;eems to be a cutting of the knot with <HI>Alexander,</HI> and ca&s;ting all loo&s;e, when he cannot &s;o untie it, as to hold fa&s;t the exerci&s;e of Chri&s;t's Kingly Power in Go|verning his Church. Neither is this Opinion new, as the Author &s;eemeth to imply; for it was long &s;ince maintained, and largely propugned by Mr. <HI>Hooker</HI> in his <HI>Eccle&s;ia&s;tical Polity,</HI> and &s;olidly refuted by Mr. <HI>Rutherford</HI> in his <HI>Divine Right of Church-Government;</HI> and indeed hath always been and &s;till is the main Pillar to uphold Epi&s;copacy in the&s;e Nations, it being the mo&s;t ready and plau&s;ible way for them, who would wreath this Iron Yoke on the Necks of their Brethren, when they cannot &s;hew them Chri&s;t's Authority for it, to take the determining of the Ca&s;e out of his hand, and to put it in the hand of the King, and then to pre&s;s it from his Authority with Fire and Sword. And in|deed this Opinion is a mo&s;t colourable excu&s;e for the unfaithful complyance of them, who would fain hold their places under any Form of Church-Government, that &s;hall lye uppermo&s;t; for &s;o they &s;hall be &s;ure never to cro&s;s Authority, and not to cro&s;s the Intere&s;t of their own Back and Belly; and how much mi&s;chief this piece hath done this way, is too evident; &s;eeing men, that incline to comply, are &s;atisfyed with &s;hadows in|&s;tead of &s;ub&s;tantial rea&s;on, to put off trouble&s;ome Con&s;cience. Yet among them, who are con&s;cientiou&s;ly zealous for any one way of Government, I &s;uppo&s;e, the Lot of this Author will be that, which is ordinary to &s;uch unhappy Peace-Makers, as &s;ell truth, or &s;ome part of it by an over-reach of conde&s;cendency, and that in Gods matters, not their own, (in which we mu&s;t bargain as hard Merchants do in worldly things,) to re|deem peace; for I &s;uppo&s;e men of all per&s;wa&s;ions will be about his Ears: For that which I am per&s;waded to
<PB N="3" REF="4">be the truth of God in point of Church-Government, <HI>viz. Government by Mini&s;ters acting in parity, and ruling El|ders met in Congregational, Cla&s;&s;ical, Provincial and Na|tional Presbyteries or A&s;&s;emblies;</HI> it is more ea&s;ily upheld again&s;t his undermining Engines, than any of the other Forms; for the lea&s;t of his Book is levelled again&s;t it in particular and what he &s;aith again&s;t it, I hope, will ap|pear not to have great &s;trength; yea, I believe, that out of what he hath &s;aid, this truth may be &s;trongly confirmed; which I &s;hall thus e&s;&s;ay in a word. He acknowledgeth and &s;tifly maintaineth, that <HI>Chri&s;t hath given power, not only of teaching, but of ruling his Church, to all and every one of his Mini&s;ters; and that he hath not given more power to one of them than another, nor made them &s;ubject or &s;ubordinate to one another.</HI> Whence it clearly followeth that <HI>Presbyterian Government</HI> (I mean the pa|rity of Mini&s;ters and their A&s;&s;ociation) is <HI>jure divino, ex confe&s;&s;o;</HI> and that Prelacy is an addition to it, made <HI>jure humano.</HI> And hence it followeth, that this addition is unlawful, except he can prove that Chri&s;t hath given a power to men to make them unequal, whom he hath made equal; to &s;ubject one to another of them, to whom Chri&s;t hath given equal power; to re&s;train, yea and take quite away the exerci&s;e of ruling power in &s;ome of them, to whom Chri&s;t hath given it as much as to others; and to enlarge that power in &s;ome, to whom Chri&s;t hath given no more than to others. Which I am &s;ure he will never be able to do: Yea further it's confe&s;&s;ed by him, that <HI>Chri&s;t hath in&s;tituted the Office of Presbyters;</HI> and that he hath <HI>not in&s;tituted the Office of Prelates, ruling over Presbyters:</HI> Wherefore he mu&s;t either &s;ay, that the Church hath power to in&s;titute new Offices, which I hope he will not a&s;&s;ert, and I am &s;ure he cannot prove; or that Prelacy is unlawful. For, that a Prelate is ano|ther Officer than a Presbyter, is undeniable, becau&s;e the one is ruled by the other. Now the&s;e of the &s;ame Office cannot be ruled by or &s;ubordinate to one another; as common &s;en&s;e and rea&s;on will teach.</P>
<PB N="4" REF="5">
<P>&sect;. 2. But to come to the Book it &s;elf. My de&s;ign is not a full Refutation, but &s;ome brief Animadver&s;ions for private &s;atisfaction, and mine own e&s;tabli&s;hment in the&s;e truths, that he endeavoureth to &s;hake: Neither do I intend to meddle with the whole, but only to cull out the&s;e pa&s;&s;ages, that relate to <HI>Presbyterian</HI> Govern|ment, and any that might infer the un&s;etling of that or any part of it.</P>
<P>&sect; 3. The fir&s;t thing, that I meet with, to be di&s;proved, is <HI>p.</HI> 2. where he a&s;&s;erteth a Principle, that will not only &s;hake our Faith (if it be received) in the point of Church-Government; but (which I hope he doth not intend) will un&s;ettle us in mo&s;t points of Chri&s;tian Re|ligion. His Principle is this, <HI>That Difference in Opini|on about a point, and probable Arguments brought on both hands by wi&s;e and able men; if it be not a matter of nece&s;&s;i|ty to Salvation, gives men ground to think, that a final de|ci&s;ion of the matter in Controver&s;ie was never intended as a nece&s;&s;ary means for the Peace and &V;nity of the Church of God.</HI> His Opinion in this he &s;etteth down in fewer and clearer words in the Contents of <HI>ch.</HI> 1. <HI>things,</HI> &s;aith he, <HI>nece&s;&s;ary for the Churches peace mu&s;t be clearly revealed; the Form of Church Government is not &s;o, as appears by the remaining Controver&s;ie about it.</HI> I &s;hall fir&s;t &s;hew the dan|ger and fal&s;ehood of this Principle, and then try the &s;trength of what he &s;aith for the e&s;tabli&s;hment of it. And 1. I argue thus: This A&s;&s;ertion de&s;troyeth it &s;elf; for if no point, not nece&s;&s;ary to Salvation, be &s;o &s;ure, that we mu&s;t nece&s;&s;arily hold it, in order to peace; then this his A&s;&s;ertion falleth under the &s;ame 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 &s;o clear, that no wi&s;e and able men will contro|vert with him about it; and if it be needle&s;s in order to the Churches peace, why is it here laid down as the <GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="UOM" EXTENT="1+ letters">r&s;t &s;tone of the Foundation, on which he buildeth his <HI>Ire|nicum?</HI> but it fareth here with our Author, as it doth
<PB N="5" REF="5">with all other Abetters of <HI>Sceptici&s;m;</HI> they attain at lea&s;t &s;o far their end, as they make men que&s;tion that O|pinion, that they labour to e&s;tabli&s;h, by per&s;wading them to que&s;tion every thing.</P>
<P>&sect;. 4. Secondly, There is no cau&s;e at all, why the Au|thor &s;hould except from the uncertainty, here a&s;&s;erted, things, that are of nece&s;&s;ity to Salvation; for, if we are to think, that the Lord hath &s;o clearly revealed things not needful to Salvation, which are needful to peace in the Church; much rather are we to think &s;o of things needful to Salvation (which al&s;o cannot but be nece&s;|&s;ary to peace; for we can have no peace with them, that de&s;troy the Foundation.) For it hath hitherto been a re|ceived Principle, that things of nece&s;&s;ity to Salvation are revealed with more clearne&s;s, than other things. And, though <HI>Papi&s;ts</HI> have laboured to ca&s;t a Mi&s;t upon Scrip|ture di&s;covery in both &s;orts of things, that they might take all power to them&s;elves over the Truths of God, and Con&s;ciences of men, in determining what is truth; (as Dr. <HI>Stillingfleet</HI> would darken the di&s;covery of the <HI>circa-fundamentals</HI> of Religion, that he might put the power of determining the&s;e things in the hand of the Magi&s;trate) yet <HI>Prote&s;tants</HI> have ever firmely maintain|ed, that however the Scripture &s;peaketh darkly in &s;ome things, not e&s;&s;ential; yet that the light of it is mo&s;t clear in things nece&s;&s;ary to Salvation. They are not then of this mans mind, who will have the things, that do not &s;o nearly relate to Salvation, but are needful to peace, &s;o clearly revealed, that there can remain no Controver&s;ie about them among wi&s;e and able men, but excepteth from this nece&s;&s;ity, things of nece&s;&s;ity to Sal|vation. From what hath been &s;aid, I argue thus again&s;t Dr. <HI>Stillingfleet</HI>'s Principle: If any things not nece&s;&s;ary to Salvation be &s;o nece&s;&s;ary to be clearly revealed, that we are to look upon them as not Chri&s;t's Truth, if there remain a Controver&s;ie about them, managed with &s;pe|cious Arguments on both &s;ides among wi&s;e and able men, much more things nece&s;&s;ary to Salvation mu&s;t be thus
<PB N="6" REF="6">clearly revealed; &s;o that there is no truth in them, if they be &s;o controverted; but the con&s;equent is mo&s;t fal&s;e and ab&s;urd, and overturneth all the Foundations of our Religion: for have not the <HI>Arrian, Soecinian, Ar|minian,</HI> and <HI>Popi&s;h</HI> Controver&s;ies been managed, yea and are they not managed by the Adver&s;aries of Truth, with Learning even to admiration. We mu&s;t then, ac|cording to this principle, not take either part of the&s;e debates for truth, but think that the Lord hath deter|mined nothing in them, and we mu&s;t leave it to men to determine in them what they plea&s;e, and mu&s;t em|brace that. Is not this a fine device to ca&s;t loo&s;e all, to bring in Sceptici&s;m in&s;tead of Faith, to make way for a &s;ubtle Sophi&s;ter to nullifie any truth, by di&s;puting &s;peciou&s;ly again&s;t it? Yet this we are to ble&s;s the Lord for, that the overturners of the Government of Chri&s;t's hou&s;e, have no other means to ca&s;t it loo&s;e by, but the&s;e, that do al&s;o ca&s;t loo&s;e all our Religion: which I hope will be a con&s;ideration to fix this truth the better in the minds of them, who are &s;erious and intelligent.</P>
<P>&sect;. 5. Thirdly, If the&s;e things not nece&s;&s;ary to &s;al|vation, that &s;peciou&s;ly on both hands are controverted, be not needful to be determined in our con&s;ciences, in order to the Churches peace, I ask the Author of this A&s;&s;ertion, What things of that nature are needful to the Churches peace, that we hold an opinion about them? Or are there any things &s;uch? or mu&s;t we he&s;i|tate about all the <HI>circa-fundamentals</HI> in Religion, and look on them as indifferences determinable by men, if we will not be guilty of di&s;turbing the peace of the Church? I hope this good man will not &s;ay &s;o: and yet it would nece&s;&s;arily follow out of this principle maintained by him; for I believe he cannot in&s;tance in many things (&s;carce in any) that are not of nece&s;&s;ity to &s;alvation, which are not controverted, and that with &s;pecious pretexts. For learned men, when they erre, u&s;e not to come off &s;o bluntly, as barely to &s;ay, <HI>it is &s;o,</HI> or <HI>I think &s;o;</HI> but they bring plau&s;ible Rea&s;ons, and tho&s;e often pre|tended
<PB N="7" REF="6">to be drawn from Scripture, for their foule&s;t errours. If then we receive this principle, we mu&s;t not think it needful to the Churches peace, to deter|mine whether there be two Sacraments or &s;even; whe|ther there be Purgatory; whether we are to pray to Saints departed; whether there be power of Cen&s;ure in Church-men; or if all Church-power be in the Ma|gi&s;trate; whether the Pope be the head of the Church; <HI>&amp;c.</HI> for all the&s;e, and &s;uch-like, are controverted; and there are colourable Arguments for the Errours, that men maintain in the&s;e points. If this, our Author will not a&s;&s;ert, what rea&s;on is there, that he &s;hould maintain, that the Form of Church-Government is not deter|mined by men for the Churches peace; and that becau&s;e there are Controver&s;ies about what is the Form appoint|ed by Chri&s;t.</P>
<P>&sect;. 6. But I come now to examine what the Author hath to &s;ay for this A&s;&s;ertion of his. <HI>We cannot,</HI> &s;aith he, <HI>with any &s;hew of rea&s;on imagine, that Chri&s;t, who hath made it a nece&s;&s;ary duty for all the Members of the Church <GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="UOM" EXTENT="1 word"> endeavour the Peace and &V;nity of it, &s;hould &s;u&s;pend <GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="UOM" EXTENT="1 word"> performance of that duty upon a matter of Opinion, which when many have u&s;ed their utmo&s;t endeavour to &s;atisfie them|&s;elves about, they yet find, that tho&s;e very grounds, which they are mo&s;t inclinable to build their Judgments upon, are ei|ther wholly rejected by others as wi&s;e and able as them&s;elves, or el&s;e, it may be, they erect a far different Fabrick upon the very &s;ame Foundations. An&s;.</HI> 1. The weakne&s;s, if not wickedne&s;s of this Argument will ea&s;ily appear, by making an A&s;&s;umption to the Propo&s;ition here &s;et down, and con&s;idering what will nece&s;&s;arily follow, which I &s;hall thus perform. <HI>That Chri&s;t is true God,</HI> is a matter of Opinion, which, when we have u&s;ed our utmo&s;t endeavours to &s;atisfie our &s;elves about it, we yet find that tho&s;e very grounds, which we are mo&s;t in|clinable to build our Judgments upon, are either <Q>wholly rejected by others, as wi&s;e and able as we, or el&s;e that they erect on them a far different Fabrick;</Q>
<PB N="8" REF="7">for it's well known that the <HI>Socinians,</HI> who are men of Wi&s;dom and Ability, though it be un&s;anctifyed; and e&s;pecially <HI>Grotius</HI> (the wonder of his Age for Learning) though yet he profe&s;s the truth in this point: That, I &s;ay, 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 <HI>vi &s;yllogi&s;tic&acirc;</HI> (&s;uppo&s;ing our Author's Propo&s;ition) that we cannot with any &s;hew of rea&s;on think that Chri&s;t would have us &s;u&s;pend the perfor|mance of our duty in endeavouring the peace of the Church on this, <HI>That Chri&s;t is true God;</HI> and &s;o we mu&s;t by this Argument yield this Truth as a <HI>matter determi|nable by men, rather than hold an Opinion in it with the lo&s;s of peace in the Church.</HI> I hope the Author will not own this Conclu&s;ion; wherefore he ought not to own that his A&s;&s;ertion, out of which it is clearly deducible.</P>
<P>&sect;. 7. <HI>An&s;.</HI> 2. There is very great rea&s;on for that, for which he denyeth all &s;hew of rea&s;on; for &s;ome matters of Opinion of that condition, which he de&s;cribeth, are the Truths of God, as is clear from what hath been &s;aid; but we are to &s;u&s;pend the endeavouring of the Churches peace, rather than part with any Truth of God, or then we &s;hould yield it upto men's determi|nations, as if it were none of his truths.</P>
<P><HI>An&s;.</HI> 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 wi&s;e and able as we, that mu&s;t determine us; for, we know, the wi&s;e&s;t may mi&s;|take, when they, who are le&s;s wi&s;e, may hit the truth through the grace of God: but we mu&s;t con&s;ider whe|ther the&s;e grounds be the dictates of the Spirit of God in his word: and if they be, we mu&s;t not be &s;haken in mind by the contrary a&s;&s;ertions of men, though never &s;o wi&s;e, yea and holy too. I grant the opinions of &s;uch &s;hould make us &s;earch carefully; but they mu&s;t not hin|der our a&s;&s;ent to the truth of God. And this is a valid rea&s;on, why we are to &s;u&s;pend our endevours of peac
<PB N="9" REF="7">on &s;ome matters of opinion, though contradicted by wi&s;e and able men.</P>
<P>&sect;. 8. He addeth, <HI>That it is not con&s;i&s;tent with Chri&s;ts Wi&s;dom to leave the peace of his Church at the mercy of men's private opinions; which are mo&s;t uncertain; for it is not expected, that all men &s;hould be of the &s;ame mind. An&s;.</HI> 1. It is too great ra&s;hne&s;s to think that Chri&s;t cannot be a wi&s;e Governour of his Church, unle&s;s he take cour&s;es for its &s;etlement, that our Wi&s;dom thinketh meet. I hope Chri&s;t may wi&s;ely govern his Church and yet not leave it to Men to determine, what &s;hall be the form of it's Government, which yet cannot be, if this rea&s;on prove that, which it is brought for. 2. We may ea&s;ily grant the conclu&s;ion of this argument, without giving the lea&s;t advantage to the a&s;&s;ertion, which it is brought to prove. It is true, Chri&s;t hath not left the peace of his Church at the mercy of men's private opinions; <HI>viz.</HI> So as that there can be no peace in the Church, except all men a|gree in opinion about all things: for peace may be maintained among di&s;&s;enting Brethren, by harmony of affection, mutual forbearance, and a prudent manag|ing and concealing of our opinion, &s;o far, as it may be without &s;in: and all this may be done without deny|ing that, which we differ about, to be determined by Chri&s;t; and a&s;&s;erting it to be a thing left indifferent. And if this be not particable, either through the Na|ture of the truth, that we di&s;&s;ent about; in that it is practical, or &s;o important that it cannot be concealed; or through the ob&s;tinacy, or wrong zeal of di&s;&s;enters; the Lord hath not left his Church without a Remedy e|ven in this ca&s;e, <HI>viz.</HI> they who do unrea&s;onaly di&s;&s;ent mu&s;t be cen&s;ured, or &s;hunned: and if this cannot be done without breach of peace, it is our Lords Wi&s;dom to provide, that we &s;hould rather loo&s;e Peace then Truth. 3. All that is here &s;aid will as well prove, that there is no fixed truth in any controverted point, though of never &s;o great concernment: for it may be &s;aid al&s;o in the&s;e, that Chri&s;t hath not left the peace of his
<PB N="10" REF="8">Church at the mercy of Men's private opinions, which are not the &s;ame in the mo&s;t fundamental points. But of this enough.</P>
<P>&sect;. 9. From what hath been &s;aid, we may &s;ee what fit advice this healer giveth, while he thus &s;aith, <HI>p.</HI> 3. <HI>The only way left for the Churche's &s;etlement and peace, un|der &s;uch variety of apprehen&s;ions, concerning the means and method in order to it, is to pitch upon &s;uch a foundation, if po&s;&s;ible to be found out, whereon the different parties, retain|ing their private apprehen&s;ions, may yet be agreed to carry on the &s;ame work in Common, in order to the peace and tranquil|lity of the Church of God.</HI> Hitherto we con&s;ent with him, and wi&s;h he would help us to &s;uch a Foundation, &s;o as it &s;elf be founded on the Word of God and not contra|ry to it. But he goeth on. <HI>Which,</HI> &s;aith he, <HI>cannot be by leaving all ab&s;olutely to follow their own ways; for that were to build a</HI> Babel <HI>in&s;tead of</HI> Salem. This al&s;o we grant: but that which follows we cannot agree to. <HI>It mu&s;t be then,</HI> &s;aith he, <HI>by convincing men, that neither of the&s;e ways to Peace and Order, which they contend about is nece&s;&s;ary by way of Divine command (though &s;ome be as a means to an end) but which particular way or form it mu&s;t be, is wholly left to the prudence of tho&s;e, in who&s;e Power and Tru&s;t it is to &s;ee the Peace of the Church &s;ecured on la&s;ting Foundations.</HI> If this be a fit way of healing Church-rents, then tho&s;e Churches are in the be&s;t way to peace, who ca&s;t away the Bible, and will not look there what God hath com|manded: becau&s;e &s;ome may &s;ay, he hath commanded this, and others, he hath commanded that: and &s;o refer all controver&s;ies to be determined by men, as &s;up|po&s;ing nothing to be determined by God. And indeed this is the ba&s;is that the peace of the Popi&s;h Church &s;tandeth upon: and I believe no Je&s;uit would have given another advice, than this, toward the fetling of our divided condition. What? Mu&s;t we &s;ay that neither way is commanded of God, whether it be &s;o or not? when we can prove from Scripture that this is Chri&s;t's In&s;titution, that not, but a device and u&s;urpation of
<PB N="11" REF="8">men; mu&s;t we yield this our ground? and leave the whole matter to men's wills, as being the readie&s;t way to peace. If this be his cure for Church-Divi&s;ions, I believe they, who take the word of God for their rule, e&s;pecially in Church-matters, will think it wor&s;e than the Di&s;ea&s;e. Every way to peace is not a good way, otherwi&s;e there were no duty at any time to contend for <HI>the truth, once delivered to the Saints, Jude</HI> 3.</P>
<P>&sect;. 10. I do not di&s;&s;ent from the learned Author in his Determinations about the Nature of <HI>Right</HI> and <HI>Di|vine Right,</HI> but mu&s;t examine &s;ome of the Principles, from which he will have <HI>a Divine Right</HI> to be inferred. Wherefore as to the re&s;t of the fir&s;t Chapter, I fir&s;t take notice, that what he largely di&s;cour&s;eth from <HI>p.</HI> 6. to <HI>p.</HI> 11. concerning the lawfulne&s;s of that, which is not forbidden by God; however it may be granted <HI>&s;ano &s;en&s;u</HI> (on which I now in&s;i&s;t not;) yet it doth not reach his point, unle&s;s he prove that Chri&s;t hath deter|mined <HI>no &s;pecies of Government;</HI> for if he hath determin|ed one, then all other incon&s;i&s;tent with it are <HI>eo ip&s;o</HI> prohibited: Wherefore, though we grant to him, that <HI>ratio regiminis eccle&s;ia&s;tici</HI> is <HI>juris naturalis;</HI> yet we can|not grant, except he proves it, that the <HI>modus</HI> of it is <HI>juris divini permi&s;&s;ivi;</HI> that is to &s;ay, it is <HI>juris humani;</HI> but we a&s;&s;ert it to be <HI>juris divini, partim naturalis, par|tim po&s;itivi, viz.</HI> in re&s;pect of the divers parts, of which that Form is made up, which are approved of God.</P>
<P>&sect;. 11. To make up an Obligation, whereby we are bound to a thing as duty, we a&s;&s;ert with him, that there is required <HI>Legi&s;lation and Promulgation of it.</HI> But what he &s;aith of the way of Promulgation of Divine Po&s;i|tive Laws, that is nece&s;&s;ary to lay an Obligation on us, I cannot fully agree to. <HI>P.</HI> 12. <HI>He a&s;&s;erteth that what|&s;oever binds Chri&s;tians as an univer&s;al &s;tanding Law, mu&s;t be clearly revealed as &s;uch, and laid down in Scripture in &s;uch evident terms, as all who have their &s;en&s;es exerci&s;ed therein, may di&s;cern it to have been the will of Chri&s;t, that it &s;hould perpetually oblige all Believers to the Worlds end;
<PB N="12" REF="9">as is clear in the ca&s;e of Bapti&s;m and the Lords Supper.</HI> But becau&s;e the learned Author could not but &s;ee, how obvious it was to every one to argue again&s;t this A&s;&s;er|tion from the in&s;tances of the change of the Sabbath, and Infant Bapti&s;m, which he acknowledgeth to be <HI>Chri&s;ts Will and Law e&s;tabli&s;hed,</HI> and yet not <HI>thus re|vealed;</HI> therefore he laboureth to obviate that Argu|ment by this exception; (to wit) that <HI>there is not the &s;ame nece&s;&s;ity for a particular and clear revelation in the alte|ration of a Law unrepealed in &s;ome circum&s;tances of it, as there is for the e&s;tabli&s;hing of a new Law: The former</HI> (&s;aith he) <HI>may be done by a different practice of per&s;ons infallibly guided; as in the ca&s;e of the change of the Sab|bath and Infant Bapti&s;m; not &s;o the latter.</HI> To this I reply a few things. 1. It had been good, if, in an A&s;&s;ertion &s;o fundamental to his whole di&s;cour&s;e, and &s;o po&s;itive for the clearne&s;s of Divine Laws, he him|&s;elf had u&s;ed more clearne&s;s; there is no &s;mall muddi|ne&s;s and ambiguity in his expre&s;&s;ions, which I mu&s;t a little remove. And fir&s;t, when he &s;aith, that <HI>Chri&s;ts Laws mu&s;t be revealed clearly as &s;uch;</HI> either he meaneth (as <HI>Hooker, Eccle&s;. polit.</HI> defending this Opinion of our Author's, expre&s;&s;eth it) that they mu&s;t be &s;et down in the <HI>Form of Laws.</HI> But it is too great pre&s;umption to pre&s;cribe to him, how he &s;hould word the intimations of his will to his People; or in what mode or form he &s;hould &s;peak to them: His will manife&s;ted to us is that which obligeth us; and this may be without &s;uch a Form. Or he meaneth, that Chri&s;ts Laws mu&s;t be &s;o clearly re|vealed, as that <HI>we may come to know, that this we are to do, and that to forbear, and that he would have us to take no|tice of it as his Will;</HI> and this we agree to, and do maintain, that the Form of Church-Government is thus revealed. Another ambiguity is, that he requir|eth them to be laid down <HI>in &s;uch evident terms as all who have their &s;en&s;es exerci&s;ed therein, may di&s;cern them to be his will to oblige us.</HI> If he mean that they, who have <HI>competent under&s;tanding and means, and do &s;eriou&s;ly &s;earch
<PB N="13" REF="9">the truth in the&s;e things</HI> (which, I &s;uppo&s;e, is the meaning of having their &s;en&s;es exerci&s;ed in them) may for the objective evidence of the things come to know them; this we do not deny; if he mean, that <HI>&s;uch will cer|tainly be convinced of them, and that there can be no impe|diment in&s;uperable by them, neither in the Object, nor in their blindne&s;s or prejudice, or other Infirmity or Di&s;advan|tage that they lye under, which may make them, that they cannot &s;ee that to be the will of Chri&s;t, which is &s;o revealed;</HI> this we utterly deny. Now this latter, not the former, mu&s;t be his meaning, becau&s;e it is nothing to the pur|po&s;e, which I will not impute to &s;o learned a man; for what is not &s;o revealed, is not revealed at all, &s;eeing it is unintelligible by defect of objective light; now, to &s;ay that Chri&s;t's Laws mu&s;t be thus revealed, is to &s;ay that they mu&s;t be promulgated, &s;ome way or other; which was never que&s;tioned by any; and mak|eth nothing for his de&s;ign, <HI>viz. that Chri&s;ts Laws mu&s;t be &s;o revealed, as that the di&s;putes about them &s;hall be ta|ken away.</HI> Yea, he cannot mean this, for the change of any Circum&s;tance of an old Law mu&s;t at lea&s;t be thus revealed, el&s;e it is not revealed at all; and yet he re|quireth another &s;ort of Revelation of new Laws, as ap|peareth from what hath been &s;aid.</P>
<P>&sect;. 12. 2. If this A&s;&s;ertion thus explained were true, there &s;hould remain no more Controver&s;ie among &s;eri|ous and learned men about any of the Laws of Chri&s;t; for &s;uch have their &s;en&s;es exerci&s;ed in the&s;e things: Wherefore they may (if we believe this Author) know &s;uch to be Chri&s;ts Laws, and therefore cannot be in an Errour about them. But how ab&s;urd this is, &s;ad Experience maketh too evident: Is it not a Contro|ver&s;ie whether Chri&s;t hath appointed &s;even or but two Sacramentst? whether he hath commanded us to pray to Saints departed? whether Excommunication be loy his Law, <HI>&amp;c.</HI> We mu&s;t then either &s;ay, that Chri&s;t hath made no Law in the&s;e things; or that men cannot mi|&s;take in them; but that they who oppo&s;e the truth here|in,
<PB N="14" REF="10">do oppo&s;e that which they know to be Chri&s;t's Law, or that Chri&s;t hath made and revealed a Law a|bout the&s;e things, but the&s;e men cannot &s;ee it, which is contrary to the Author's A&s;&s;ertion.</P>
<P N="3">3. Is it not enough to bind the Con&s;cience of any, who &s;oberly &s;eek to know what is the good, and perfect, and acceptable will of God, that the Lord in his word hath given &s;ome intimation, from which we may gather, that &s;uch a thing is his will: Sure, &s;eeing it is his will, that bindeth the Con&s;cience, whatever way we come to the knowledge of this will, we are obliged by it to our du|ty. Now we may be able, in &s;ome ca&s;es, to deduce from Scripture &s;uch a thing to be the will of God, though it be not &s;et down in &s;uch evident terms as are here mentioned, as is clear to any who do con&s;ider. 4. There are many points of Truth, or many <HI>Credenda,</HI> in the Scripture, which want &s;uch an Evidence of Reve|lation, as is here required; which yet we are to be|lieve as the truths of God; for it is clear, that the Lord hath taught us many things in the Bible, as it were on the bye, and left them to be gathered from Scrip|ture A&s;&s;ertions: yea many times Truths are couched in Duties commanded, as Commands al&s;o are compre|hended in A&s;&s;ertions and Promi&s;es. Now if this clear|ne&s;s of terms in the Revelation of the <HI>Credenda</HI> of Religion be not nece&s;&s;ary to bind the Con&s;cience to believe, how is it imaginable, that it &s;hould be nece&s;&s;a|ry in the Revelation of the <HI>Agenda,</HI> to bind the Will to act? &s;eeing the Lord doth as peremptorily require us to believe what he hath &s;aid, as to do what he hath commanded. 5. For the exception that he maketh of the <HI>changing &s;ome Circum&s;tances of old Laws;</HI> I &s;ee not on what Foundation of rea&s;on, the difference between the&s;e and new Laws can &s;tand; but that this &s;hift &s;erveth his purpo&s;e: For (to take his own in&s;tance) &s;uppo&s;ing a &s;tanding Law for a Sabbath, and that the <HI>&s;eventh day mu&s;t be kept:</HI> This Circum&s;tance (as he is pleas'd to call it) that not the <HI>&s;eventh,</HI> but the <HI>fir&s;t day</HI>
<PB N="15" REF="10">be kept, is really a new law: yea there are here two new laws; one abrogating what was before, and ma|king it no duty to keep the <HI>&s;eventh day:</HI> another e|&s;tabli&s;hing a new, which was not before, and making it a duty <HI>to keep the fir&s;t day.</HI> Now if this may be thought no obliginglaw of Chri&s;t without that evidence of revelation, which he talks of, why may not ano|ther thing, that was not &s;uch before? If we are to look to <HI>Apo&s;tolick practice</HI> as ground &s;ufficient why we &s;hould think it Chri&s;ts will, that <HI>we &s;hould keep the fir&s;t day of the week to the Lord;</HI> which was not done before; why &s;hould we not think the &s;ame ground &s;ufficient, why <HI>Mini&s;ters &s;hould rule the Church by a parity of Authori|ty?</HI> Yea, rea&s;on would &s;ay, that there is need of more clearne&s;s, in the revelation of Chri&s;t's will for altering a &s;tanding law in &s;uch of it's circum&s;tances as doth annul one duty, and e&s;tabli&s;h another, than for &s;et|ling that as duty which is altogether new, &s;eeing in the former, we mu&s;t both know the will of God in abrogating and e&s;tabli&s;hing: in the later we are to know only, that he will &s;tabli&s;h &s;ucha thing.</P>
<P>&sect;. 13. In his examination of what maketh an unalte|rable Divine right, I agree to mo&s;t that he teacheth; only his <HI>Po&s;tulatum p.</HI> 14. one which he buildeth all his a&s;&s;ertions, needeth to be a little cleared. He a&s;&s;erteth that <HI>nothing can be founded on Divine Right, nor bind Be|lievers as a po&s;itive Law, but what may be certainly known to have come from God, with an intention to bind Believers to the Worlds end.</HI> Where I only take notice that, though <HI>Plerophory</HI> in that ca&s;e be very de&s;irable; yet &s;uch cer|tainty is not nece&s;&s;ary to our obligation: But &s;o much knowledge of the will of God as may &s;atisfie the Con|&s;cience, by inclining it to the one hand, and not leav|ing it ab&s;olutely in &s;u&s;pence. If this be not &s;ufficient, we &s;hall take off all obligation of Gods po&s;itive laws from mo&s;t men: for few have plerophorie in mo&s;t things. I agree with him, that <HI>a divine right is built on the law of nature, and on the immutable po&s;itive laws
<PB N="16" REF="11">of God:</HI> al&s;o, that the&s;e are three good marks of the immutability of divine po&s;itive laws, which he bring|eth: viz. <HI>when the rea&s;on of the law remains: when God hath declared &s;uch a law never to be changed: when it con|duceth to the being of a Society, that he would have to con|tinue.</HI> Only I cannot &s;ee how the&s;e (e&s;peeially the former two marks) do con&s;i&s;t with the <HI>mutability of that Church government,</HI> (in the&s;e things we controvert a|bout) which the Apo&s;tles practi&s;ed (no doubt, as being Chri&s;ts will and law) &s;eeing there is the &s;ame rea&s;on for parity now, that then was: and Chri&s;t hath not &s;aid, that he will have it altered in after ages.</P>
<P>&sect;. 14. Page 23. He comes to examine &s;ome pre|tences (as he is plea&s;ed to call them) for a divine right. And fir&s;t, he laboureth to enervate the argument for the divine right of Church-Government, taken from <HI>Apo&s;tolical practice:</HI> of which he promi&s;eth to &s;ay more after: but what he here &s;aith, we &s;hall examine. I yield to him, that <HI>all Scripture examples do not bind;</HI> neither doth any example bind as an example: al&s;o, that the <HI>rule, whereby we know what examples do bind, is not immediately obligatory, but directive.</HI> I grant likewi&s;e that in &s;uch examples, that which bindeth us, is ei|ther the <HI>moral nature of the action,</HI> or the <HI>law command|ing us to follow the example.</HI> And yet all the&s;e conce&s;&s;i|ons yield him no advantage, neither bring our cau&s;e any lo&s;s: for when he requireth us, who plead for the divine right of a particular form of Church-Govern|ment from Apo&s;tolical example, to &s;hew either the <HI>morality of their actions;</HI> or <HI>a law commanding us to fol|low them:</HI> I An&s;wer, as to the fir&s;t, there needeth no particular demon&s;tration of the morality of Apo&s;to|lick actions: but this we can &s;ay for them, the na|ture and condition of the actions, and the Apo&s;tles doing of them, being con&s;idered; rea&s;on will not &s;uffer us to que&s;tion the morality of them. I mean it is cer|tain that they are the will of Chri&s;t: for we mu&s;t think that in matters not light and occa&s;ional, but weighty
<PB N="17" REF="11">and of great concernment whether they be well or ill done; and which were done on mature deliberation; as the admini&s;tration of the affairs of Chri&s;t's hou&s;e: in matters, I &s;ay, of this nature, we are to think that the Apo&s;tles did that which was be&s;t and mo&s;t appro|ved of God; they being infallibly guided by his &s;pirit. Now that, which was be&s;t to them, mu&s;t certainly be be&s;t to us al&s;o, we managing the &s;ame affairs; except &s;ome di|ver&s;ity of our ca&s;e from theirs can be &s;hewn: wherefore we are obliged to think that the parity of Mini&s;ters in ruling the Church, is Chri&s;t's will, and &s;o a moral du|ty; (not a thing indifferent) &s;eeing it was &s;o in the Apo&s;tolick Churches; as, I &s;uppo&s;e, is proved by the maintainers of that way: and there is no rea&s;on why it &s;hould be otherwi&s;e with us than with them. For the &s;econd, we have al&s;o a law for following Apo&s;to|lical example (as we have for following Chri&s;t's exam|ple; which, our Author &s;aith, maketh it our duty) <HI>viz.</HI> 1 <HI>Cor.</HI> 4.16. <HI>Wherefore I be&s;eech you be ye followers of me.</HI> 1 Cor. 11.1. <HI>Be ye followers of me, even as I am of Chri&s;t.</HI> And le&s;t any think that this command of imitation is only in reference to duties otherways known to be &s;uch, as faith, love, &amp;c. it is evident that this la&s;t place relateth to Church admini&s;trations; for he prefixeth this exhortation to the doctrine of de|cency and purity in their wor&s;hip. Be&s;ide, that the exhortation being general, can &s;uffer no exception; but where imitation would not have the &s;ame morali|ty in us, that giving example had in them, <HI>viz.</HI> where the ca&s;e is different. Other Scriptures to the &s;ame purpo&s;e are <HI>Phil.</HI> 3.17. <HI>Heb.</HI> 6.12. and this is com|mended (which clearly &s;uppo&s;eth a command) 1 <HI>The&s;.</HI> 1.6. and 2.14. 2 <HI>The&s;.</HI> 3.9. <HI>Ja.</HI> 5.10. Wherefore, if we can &s;hew Apo&s;tolical practice for our way of Church-Government (as I know we can) it is incum|bent on our adver&s;aries to &s;hew a rea&s;on why they did &s;uch things, which doth not agree to our ca&s;e; or
<PB N="18" REF="12">el&s;e to &s;ubmit to that way, as that which is Chri&s;t's law. For the other grounds of divine right, that he examin|eth, we in&s;i&s;t not on them, as not being nece&s;&s;ary to the defence of that truth which we maintain. Where|fore I wave what might be &s;aid again&s;t what he there di&s;puteth.</P>
</DIV2>
<DIV2 N="2" TYPE="chapter">
<HEAD>CHAP. II.</HEAD>
<P>&sect;. 1. IN the &s;econd chapter of the fir&s;t part of his <HI>Ire|nicum</HI> he layeth &s;ome hypothe&s;es for a foundation of his following di&s;cour&s;e: where I &s;hall pa&s;s over in &s;ilence, the&s;e things that have truth in them; and the&s;e al&s;o, the examining of which is not needful to the pre&s;ent purpo&s;e, <HI>viz.</HI> defending Presbyterial Go|vernment to be <HI>juris divini.</HI> Only, I take notice, that here, and through his whole book, he &s;pendeth mo&s;t of his pains and learning, in proving the&s;e points, which are either digre&s;&s;ions from the pre&s;ent bu&s;ine&s;s, or are not denied by any of his oppo&s;ites: which is <HI>magno conatu nihil agere.</HI></P>
<P>&sect;. 2. In his fourth hypothe&s;is, <HI>p.</HI> 38. &s;ome things need our remark: he &s;etteth it down thus: <HI>In things which are determined both by the law of nature and divine po&s;itive laws, as to the &s;ub&s;tance and morality of them, but not determined as to all circum&s;tances belonging to them, it is in the power of lawful authority in the Church of God to deter|mine them &s;o far as they judge them tend to the promoting of the performance of them in due manner.</HI> Two things in this hy|pothe&s;is I condemn. 1. That he warranteth men to determine things undetermined in the Church, &s;o far as <HI>they judge needful:</HI> he &s;hould have &s;aid, &s;o far <HI>as is needful:</HI> for if we hold this his a&s;&s;ertion <HI>in terminis,</HI> &s;u|per&s;titious men in lawful authority may bind us in all things where Chri&s;t hath left us free; &s;o that it &s;hall not be lawful to &s;peak, look or act in the Church,
<PB N="19" REF="12">but as they think fit. And indeed here is a foundati|on for almo&s;t all the Ceremonies that either Popes or Prelates ever burthened the Church of God with: they are nothing but determinations of what is left unde|termined; and they judge them to tend to promote wor&s;hip: as, it is not determined, what Garment a Mi|ni&s;ter &s;hall wear, the Church judgeth a Surplice to tend to promote wor&s;hip: then by this hypothe&s;is, the Church may determine this: which is not only a|gain&s;t truth, as might ea&s;ily be &s;hewed, if that were now my work, but al&s;o again&s;t this Author, who declareth him&s;elf again&s;t Ceremonies of Mens appointing.</P>
<P N="2">2. That he extendeth this determining power &s;o far, that not only things undetermined, and that mu&s;t be determined, otherwi&s;e the Ordinances cannot be gone about without defect or &s;in, may be determined by lawful authority (for this we grant, and therefore do clo&s;e with his example of appointing the place and hour for wor&s;hip) but al&s;o things that <HI>they judge tend to promote the due manner of the Ordinances,</HI> may be thus determined; which a little after he expound|eth of the <HI>decency and &s;olemnity of wor&s;hip.</HI> This we cannot a&s;&s;ent to: For there is no pompous Ceremony that ever man devi&s;ed, but they judged it fit to pro|mote the &s;olemnity of wor&s;hip. And indeed the Scri|pture condemning the pompou&s;ne&s;s and gaudine&s;s of wor&s;hip, and commending the &s;implicity of it, &s;aith plainly, that it is not left to men to add their deter|minations to God's, to make the wor&s;hip as &s;olemn as they judge meet; but that we ought to be content with that &s;olemnity, which is made in wor&s;hip by God's In&s;titutions, and the needful determination of circum|&s;tances. Neither can this blow to his hypothe&s;is be evited, by &s;aying, that he &s;peaketh only of circum|&s;tances, which we confe&s;s may be determined by the Church. For 1. All Ceremonies are al&s;o circum&s;tan|ces; and he doth not here mention meer circum&s;tances, to exclude Ceremonies from the determing power of
<PB N="20" REF="13">Authority in the Church. 2. Though he &s;hould be un|der&s;tood of meer circum&s;tances, <HI>viz.</HI> which are &s;uch before they be determined; as the habit in which we are to wor&s;hip: yet even &s;uch, when they are deter|mined by men without nece&s;&s;ity, only, that they may add to the wor&s;hip a decency, which is not needful by nature, civil cu&s;tom, nor divine in&s;titution, they become Religious Ceremonies; their end being Religi|ous, and they being peculiar to Religion: As I have &s;hewn in another piece.</P>
<P>&sect;. 3. It &s;eemeth to me very &s;trange, and not to be pa&s;&s;ed over in our Animadver&s;ions; that in the pro|&s;ecuting of this his hypothe&s;is, wherein he had a&s;cribed a determining power to lawful Authority in the Church; he taketh notice of no power or Authority &s;eated in Church-men; but &s;peaketh only of the Magi&s;trate: for <HI>p.</HI> 38. &s;hewing why there is need to prove this hypo|the&s;is, he tells us of <HI>&s;ome that give no power, and &s;ome that give little power to the Magi&s;trate about Religion:</HI> and then falleth upon a large debate of the Magi&s;trate's power in Church-matters. Which is an evident &s;up|po&s;ing, that all Church-power is in the Magi&s;trate, and in none el&s;e: otherwi&s;e this di&s;cour&s;e &s;hould be very impertinent to his hypothe&s;is. But this &s;uppo&s;i|tion is a gro&s;s fal&s;hood, as is fully proved by many worthy men again&s;t <HI>Era&s;tus</HI> and his followers. I &s;hall not now ingage in that large debate. If we &s;hould grant a determining power to any authority about the things in hand, it &s;hould not be to the <HI>Civil Magi&s;trate;</HI> but to the Guides of the Church met in a lawful A&s;&s;embly. And it is not only contrary to truth, but a contradiction to what this Author wri|teth el&s;ewhere, in his Appendix about <HI>Excommunica|tion;</HI> where he taketh much pains to a&s;&s;ert a power of Di&s;cipline in the <HI>Church-Guides:</HI> and if &s;o, certain|ly the Magi&s;trate is not the lawful Authority in the Church: for that implyeth Church Authority. I hope he will not &s;ay, that Mini&s;ters have lawful Authority in
<PB N="21" REF="13">the State; becau&s;e they have no Civil Authority: why then &s;hould we &s;ay, or &s;uppo&s;e, that the Magi&s;trate hath lawful Authority in the Church; except he think that the Magi&s;trate hath <HI>Church-Authority?</HI> again&s;t which he there di&s;puteth; e&s;pecially &s;eeing <HI>Re&s;publica non e&s;t in Eccle&s;ia, &s;ed Eccle&s;ia in Republica;</HI> he that hath only Civil power, hath no power in the Church, whatever he hath about Church-matters, and over Church-men.</P>
<P>&sect;. 4. In a&s;&s;erting the Magi&s;trates power in the&s;e things, he profe&s;&s;eth, that <HI>he will not &s;o much make his way through any party, as &s;trive to beget a right under|&s;tanding among them that differ:</HI> how well he keepeth his promi&s;e may be &s;een, by examining what he &s;aith; on which I will not much in&s;i&s;t, (intending to meet with this his Doctrine el&s;ewhere) but only mark what is ami&s;s, with a &s;hort ground of our cen&s;ure of it: for this debate is &s;omewhat extrin&s;ecal to the <HI>indifferency of Church-Government:</HI> it rather &s;uppo&s;eth it, than a&s;&s;erteth or proveth it. In explicating his &s;e|cond di&s;tinction about the Magi&s;trate's power, <HI>p.</HI> 41. <HI>The internal, formal, elicitive power of order,</HI> &s;aith he, <HI>lies in the Authoritative exerci&s;e of the Mini&s;terial fun|ction, in Preaching of the word, and Admini&s;tration of the Sacraments; but the external, objective, imperative power of juri&s;diction lies in a due care and provi&s;ion for the de|fence, protection, and propagation of Religion.</HI> The former is only proper to the <HI>Mini&s;try,</HI> the later to the <HI>Su|pream Magi&s;tracy.</HI> Here &s;everal things are to be no|ted. 1. That he maketh the power of Order to be all one with internal, formal, elicitive power about Church affairs; and the power of Juri&s;diction the &s;ame with external, objective and imperative power about them. This is in&s;tead of di&s;tingui&s;hing to confound things mo&s;t different: for, I hope, he is not Ignorant that all the A&s;&s;ertors of Church-power again&s;t the <HI>Era&s;ti|ans,</HI> do di&s;tingui&s;h Church-power, or the Keys of the Kingdom of Heaven (for &s;o is this power de&s;igned by Chri&s;t) in the power or Key of Order; and the
<PB N="22" REF="14">power or Key of Juri&s;diction. Let the Author &s;hew us one (not <HI>Era&s;tian</HI>) who before him&s;elf did ever make the power of Order in the Church to compre|hend all formal and elicitive Church-power. Yea, he doth by this mo&s;t evidently contradict him&s;elf (which I wonder to meet with &s;o often in &s;uch a learned man) for in his Appendix he maketh the power of Di&s;ci|pline to be <HI>in the Church;</HI> and &s;o to be <HI>formal, internal and elicitive Church-power:</HI> and &s;ure the power of Di|&s;cipline is the power of <HI>Juri&s;diction,</HI> not of <HI>Order:</HI> not only becau&s;e all that &s;peak of this di&s;tinction do &s;o under&s;tand it: but al&s;o our Author doth here make the <HI>power of Order</HI> to re&s;pect only the word and Sa|craments; and &s;o the <HI>power of Di&s;cipline</HI> mu&s;t belong to Juri&s;diction, according to him: now whereas he maketh the power of Juri&s;diction there to be inter|nal only in the Church: and here to be external in the Magi&s;trate 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 a&s;cribeth to the Mini&s;try is only <HI>Admini&s;tration of the Word and Sacraments.</HI> Then they have no power of <HI>Di&s;cipline,</HI> for every one knoweth that that is &s;ome other thing than the Word and Sacraments. Now this is contradicto|ry to the whole of his own Appendix: and al&s;o to Scripture, which giveth to Church-Officers power of <HI>binding and loo&s;ing, Mat.</HI> 18.18. <HI>Jo.</HI> 20.23. and <HI>of ru|ling the Lord's People,</HI> 1 <HI>The&s;.</HI> 5.12. <HI>Heb.</HI> 13.17. But I in&s;i&s;t not on this, it having been made evident by &s;o many again&s;t the <HI>Era&s;tians.</HI> 3. He a&s;cribed all power about Church affairs to the Magi&s;trate, ex|cept that of Admini&s;tring the Word and Sacraments; and &s;o to the Magi&s;trate as it is only belonging to him: for he giveth him that which he called the power of Juri&s;diction, and that is to him all power but that of Word and Sacraments. Now there was never any <HI>Era&s;tian</HI> that gave more to the Magi&s;trate than this: for by this means, he hath all the power of deciding
<PB N="23" REF="14">controver&s;ies in Synods (for that is not preaching of the Word) of Ordination, the exerci&s;e of Di&s;cipline, &amp;c. and none but he hath any &s;hare in it. Behold unto what ab&s;urdities this man runneth unawares, while he maketh it his bu&s;ine&s;s to unhinge that Go|vernment which Chri&s;t hath &s;etled in his Church. And indeed I cannot but take notice of a nece&s;&s;a|ry connexion between this putting all Church-power in the hands of the Magi&s;trate, and denying it to be <HI>juris divini.</HI> For he knew well, that if it had been left to be decided by Church-men among them&s;elves; it had not been ea&s;ily determined amid&s;t the intere&s;t of men cla&s;hing one with another; the more con|&s;cientious and &s;elf-denied &s;ort being ever the fewe&s;t.</P>
<P>&sect;. 5. Page 42. Speaking of the Subordination or Co-ordination of the Magi&s;tracy and Mini&s;try, there be &s;ome mi&s;takes worthy of our notice. Though he acknowledgeth the <HI>per&s;on of the Magi&s;trate to be &s;ub|ject to the word of God,</HI> yet he denieth it to <HI>be &s;ubject to the power of the Mini&s;ters.</HI> This is the Doctrine of Court-preachers, who love to flatter rather than &s;peak truth. But con&s;ider. 1 It is to me an incon&s;i&s;tency, that Mini&s;ters have power or authority of Preaching the Word; and the Magi&s;trate's per&s;on is &s;ubject to this Word, and yet he is not &s;ubject to the power of Mini&s;ters. When they teach, rebuke, exhort with all authority and command in the name of the Lord; doth not this reach Magi&s;trates as well as o|thers, if they be &s;ubject to the word of God? I &s;ee not how they are &s;ubject to it, if they be not &s;ub|ject to it as declared by Chri&s;t's Emba&s;&s;adors, which is the ordinary way of di&s;pen&s;ing it: and if &s;o, then are they &s;ubject to the Preaching power of Mini&s;ters at lea&s;t. 2. Magi&s;trates are al&s;o &s;ubject to the ru|ling power of Mini&s;ters: for they rule over Chri&s;t's Flock; the Members of the Church, of which num|ber, if the Magi&s;trate be, I &s;ee no ground in Scri|pture
<PB N="24" REF="15">for exempting him from the power of their Ju|ri&s;diction. When Chri&s;t &s;aid, <HI>Who&s;e&s;oever &s;ins ye remit, they are ramitted, and who&s;e&s;oever &s;ins ye retain, they are retained;</HI> he did not add, except the &s;upream Magi|&s;trates. May not, I pray, the Pa&s;tors of the Church debar him, if he be a flagitious man, from the Lord's Table, as <HI>Ambro&s;e</HI> did to <HI>Theodo&s;ius?</HI> and if they may, certainly the Magi&s;trate per&s;onally con&s;idered is &s;ub|ject to the ruling power of Pa&s;tors in &s;piritual things; as they are &s;ubject to him in civil things. And to deny this, what is it, but to make the &s;upream Ma|gi&s;trate head of the Church and not a Member of it? Much more worthy to be received is the opinion of <HI>Cry&s;o&s;tome,</HI> who &s;peaketh thus to Eccle&s;ia&s;tical per|&s;ons, in reference to ab&s;tention from the Lord's Sup|per; <HI>Si dux igitur qui&s;piam, &s;i Con&s;ul ip&s;e, &s;i, qui dia|demate ornatur, indigne adeat, cohibe ac coerce; majorem tu illo hab&egrave;s authoritatem.</HI></P>
<P>&sect;. 6. He cometh afterward, <HI>p.</HI> 43. to a&s;cribe to the Magi&s;trate not only a <HI>political power,</HI> which he ma|keth to lie in the Execution and Admini&s;tration of laws for the common good: but al&s;o an <HI>Architectoni|cal and Nomothetical power</HI> (though not ab&s;olute and independent) whereby he may make laws in things that belong to the Church. His meaning in this he expre&s;&s;eth more fully in the end of <HI>p.</HI> 44. <HI>In matters,</HI> &s;aith he, <HI>undetermined by the word of God concern|ing the external policy of the Church of God, the Ma|gi&s;trate hath the power of determining things, &s;o they be agreeable to the word of God.</HI> And becau&s;e he knew that the Church-Guides would put in for this Power, that here he giveth to the Magi&s;trate, therefore, <HI>p.</HI> 45. he laboureth to reconcile the&s;e parties, by a di|&s;tinction or two, <HI>viz.</HI> between <HI>declaring Chri&s;t's Laws, and making new Laws:</HI> and between <HI>advi&s;ing what is fit,</HI> and <HI>determining what &s;hall be done.</HI> The declaring and advi&s;ing Power is given by him to the Church; the Authoritative determining power to the Magi&s;trate. For <HI>p.</HI> 46. <HI>The
<PB N="25" REF="15">great u&s;e,</HI> &s;aith he, <HI>of Synods and A&s;&s;emblies of Pa&s;tors of the Church is, to be as the Council of the Church unto the King; as the Parliament is for matters of Civil Government.</HI> And p. 47. but yet, &s;aith he, <HI>When &s;uch men thus a&s;&s;embled have gravely and maturally advi&s;ed and deliberated what is fitte&s;t to be done; the force, &s;trength, and obligation of the thing &s;o determined doth depend on the Power and Autho|rity of the Civil Magi&s;trate.</HI> Again&s;t this Doctrine (be|fore I come to examine the Rea&s;ons that he bringeth for it) I have the&s;e things to &s;ay. 1. It mu&s;t be noted (by pa&s;&s;ing over which in &s;ilence our Author hath con|founded the matter) that we are not here &s;peaking of things that are properly Civil, though belonging to the Church, <HI>viz.</HI> as it is a Society, and in the Common-Wealth; &s;uch as Church-rents, Meeting-places, liber|ty of the u&s;e of them, <HI>&amp;c.</HI> but of the Government of the Church, as it is a Church, of its Di&s;cipline; which things are properly the external policy of that Church, as our Author termeth that which he &s;peaketh of. Now the Que&s;tion is, whether the Power of de|termining the&s;e, be in the Church-Guides or the Ma|gi&s;trate. 2. That which is the <GAP DESC="foreign">, and the ground of mo&s;t of this Author's mi&s;takes, is, he &s;up|po&s;eth that &s;ome things of this Church-policy are &s;o left undetermined by the word, that they are capable of a determination by men's Legi&s;lative power, and that new Laws may be made about them. This is not truth; for, if we &s;peak of the Sub&s;tantials of Church-Go|vernment, even of a particular Form, it is determined in the word, and &s;o not &s;ubject to men's Nomothetical Determinations; if of the Circum&s;tances of it, nei|ther are the&s;e left for men to make Laws about them, but they are determined by the Lord, in the general Rules that are in the word, and the Dictates of right rea&s;on compared with them; and the Obligation, that lyeth on our Con&s;ciences in the&s;e things, is not from the Magi&s;trates Law (though we do not deny but he may add his Sanction to both &s;orts of things, and
<PB N="26" REF="16">make them the Law of the Nation, as Dr. <HI>Stilling&s;leet</HI> &s;aith well, that he may with any thing in Religion) but from the will of God, which ought to be &s;earched out, and held forth Authoritatively by the Guides of the Church, that are acting in the name of Chri&s;t. 3. It is fal&s;e then that the <HI>Magi&s;trate hath Power in deter|mining what of the External Policy of the Church is unde|termined in the word.</HI> For if we &s;peak of that which is not determined at all, neither by particular Praecepts, or Examples, or otherwi&s;e, &s;ignifying particularly the mind of Chri&s;t about &s;uch a thing, <HI>viz.</HI> by the general rules of the word compared with right rea&s;on, is not held forth to be the mind of Chri&s;t; &s;uch things ought not to be determined by any man or men, but are left to Chri&s;ti|an Liberty; for &s;uch things mu&s;t be determined meerly by mans will, but the Lord hath not left the matters of his Church to that crooked rule. But if we &s;peak of things not determined by particular praecepts, <HI>&amp;c.</HI> yet in which the mind of Chri&s;t is deducible by general rules: Nei|ther here hath the Magi&s;trate the determining Power, but they, whom the Lord hath made the Guides and Eyes of his Church; they mu&s;t declare what is the will of Chri&s;t, not impo&s;e what is their own Will or Law. And here the Obligation is from the will of Chri&s;t, not the Authority of the Church, nor the Magi&s;trate nei|ther; the declaration of it from them, whom Chri&s;t hath made his Emba&s;&s;adors. For what I have &s;aid, I give this brief rea&s;on, The Affairs of the Church are to be managed by a Mini&s;terial Power, the farthe&s;t ex|tent of which is to declare Chri&s;t's Laws, and apply them; as is generally confe&s;&s;ed by <HI>Prote&s;tants</HI> again&s;t <HI>Pa|pi&s;ts:</HI> but the Magi&s;trate's Power is not Mini&s;terial, but Magi&s;terial: <HI>Ergo,</HI> it is not his part to manage or deter|mine the Affairs of the Church, of which doubtle&s;s her external Policy is no &s;mall part, which may be fur|ther enforced thus; Church-Determinations mu&s;t be the Declarations of the will of Chri&s;t, but not the Magi&s;trate, but the Pa&s;tors are the Emba&s;&s;adors of Chri&s;t, who&s;e it is to declare his will: <HI>ergo,</HI> it is not his,
<PB N="27" REF="16">but their part to make &s;uch Determinations. We &s;peak not of the Judgment of Di&s;cretion, which the Magi&s;trate hath in the&s;e things, in order to the adding his Sanction to them; and that not only as others have, theirs being private, and his publick and with Autho|rity: But we &s;peak of that determination of things, which is the ordinary means of promulgating to us the mind of Chri&s;t in Church-matters. 4. It is mo&s;t fal&s;e that the <HI>great u&s;e of Synods is to be the King's Church-Coun|cil, as the Parliament is his Civil Council;</HI> for, 1. him&s;elf acknowledgeth another u&s;e of them, while he a&s;cribeth to the Church, a power of declaring Chri&s;t's Laws; is not this of great u&s;e? but Contradictions are no rarity in this Author. 2. Hence it followeth, that as Parli|amentary Acts have no &s;orce without the King's San|ction, &s;o likewi&s;e Church-Determinations have none without it; and if the Church Excommunicate any per&s;on, it is not valid, nor his &s;ins bound in Heaven, till the King put his Seal to it; for that &s;uch a per&s;on be Excommunicated, is not determined in Scripture. 3. The Council at <HI>Jeru&s;alem, Act.</HI> 15. and all the Councils before <HI>Con&s;tantine</HI>'s time, were of no great u&s;e; for they had not this u&s;e, there being no Magi&s;trate to own them as his Council. 4. This de&s;troys that received Axiom among all them, who are not the avowed Follow|ers of <HI>Era&s;tus, viz.</HI> that the Magi&s;trate's power is cumu|lative to the Church, not privative; for it maketh his to &s;wallow it up, there being no Authority, nor great u&s;e of Synods, without the Magi&s;trate. 5. This taketh away from the Church entirene&s;s of power in her &s;elf, in things that do concern her as &s;uch a Society, and a Capacity to &s;ub&s;i&s;t without the Magi&s;trate; which I hope this Author, when better advi&s;ed, will not own. 5. It is al&s;o fal&s;e, that when Church-Guides A&s;&s;em|bled, have deliberated and determined, the force, &s;trength, and obligation of the things &s;o determined, doth depend on the Magi&s;trate; for it dependeth on the rea&s;on of them containing the Will of Chri&s;t, and not on the Authority of men.</P>
<PB N="28" REF="17">
<P>&sect;. 7. I come now to &s;ee what Arguments he bringeth for what he hath a&s;&s;erted. 1. Saith he, <HI>Taking the Church as incorporated into the Civil State, though the Ob|ject of the&s;e things, the matter of them, and per&s;ons deter|mining them be eccle&s;ia&s;tical, yet the force and ground of the Obligation of them is wholly Civil. An&s;.</HI> That the Church is in the Republick we do not deny: yet that mu&s;t not be &s;o under&s;tood as if either the&s;e two were not di&s;tinct Corporations, or the Power of the one were &s;ubordinate to, or &s;wallowed up the other. The &s;aying of <HI>Optat Milev:</HI> (which he citeth) that <HI>Eccle&s;ia e&s;t in Republica, non Re&s;publica in Eccle&s;ia;</HI> will not bear that: but the meaning is, that either the Church is in the <HI>Rep.</HI> as the le&s;&s;er &s;ociety in the greater, as a few Pari&s;hes are in a County; &s;o the Primitive Churches were in <HI>Rome, Co|rinth, &amp;c.</HI> or when the Church is <HI>ae&abque; late patens</HI> with the Nation, that the Church is in Protection of the Ci|vil State, not <HI>e contra;</HI> &s;eeing Kings mu&s;t be Nur&s;ing Fa|thers to her, and as it were keep hou&s;e for her to be nur&s;|ed in. Or &s;peaking of a National Church, that it's being a nation is Prior in order of Nature than it's being a Church; becau&s;e it might be a Nation, and not a Church; but it cannot be a Church and not a Nation. Now, none of the&s;e do infer that the Obligation of determinations made by Church men, about Church affairs is civil; but it may be and is Eccle&s;ia&s;tical, <HI>viz.</HI> from the will of Chri&s;t, which the Church holdeth forth as his Emba&s;&s;adors. Wherefore this Ratiocination is altogether incon&s;e|quent. But he cometh to Authority, to &s;ee if that will help him. He citeth <HI>P. Martyr. lo. com. cla&s;: fig.</HI> 4. <HI>c.</HI> 5. <HI>s.</HI> 11. and in 1 <HI>Sam.</HI> 8. <HI>Nam quod ad pote&s;t atem eccle|&s;ia&s;ticam attinet, &s;atis e&s;t civilis Magi&s;tratus: is enim cu|rare debet ut omnes officium faciant.</HI> What he meaneth for citing both the&s;e places for the&s;e words, I know not, un le&s;s it be that they are to be found in them both. But I am &s;ure neither they, nor any thing like them is in the form|er place (for the later I have not that part of his works) but the contrary of what this Author intendeth, is there
<PB N="29" REF="17">clearly and fully taught, <HI>viz.</HI> he is refuting them who would have the Power of di&s;cipline in the Church to cea&s;e, now when the Magi&s;trate is Chri&s;tian, and he a&s;|&s;erteth <HI>Eccle&s;ia&s;tical Power and Civil as di&s;tinct:</HI> and only &s;ays that the <HI>Magi&s;trate &s;hould correct mini&s;ters if they do not carry as they ought:</HI> but this is far from that, <HI>quod ad pote&s;tatem Eccle&s;iae attinet, &s;atis e&s;t civilis Magi&s;trat us.</HI> He refers, for the judgment of the reformed Divines in this to <HI>Vedel. de Epi&s;c. Con&s;t. Mag. et Offic. Magi&s;tratus, an|nexed</HI> to <HI>Grot. de Imper. &s;um. pot. circa &s;acra.</HI> But it is well known that <HI>Vedelius</HI> was an <HI>Era&s;tian</HI> and (as this Author doth) did fowly abu&s;e the reformed Divines making them &s;peak what they never thought; wherefore I refer to <HI>Apol. Triglandius, Revius;</HI> who have refuted that &s;e|ducing Pamphlet of <HI>Vedelius.</HI> For the other Author, let his Citations be weighed, they will never prove that any of the Reformers gave the Power of de|termining Church-Affairs to the Magi&s;trate. He addeth three rea&s;ons of his Allegation, yet they are but two, for the two former do coincide, and the &s;trength of them is; <HI>that it is from the Authority of the Magi&s;trate, that obligation to obedience or penalty is;</HI> or (which is the &s;ame) it is from him that the <HI>&s;anction, or annexing of Penalties to the con&s;titutions, is;</HI> 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. <HI>An&s;.</HI> All this is ea&s;ily taken away by a well known di|&s;tinction in things that are commanded by Chri&s;t, and by his Church declared to be &s;uch; and al&s;o, are rati|fied by the &s;anction of the Magi&s;trate, there is a two-fold Obligation: one <HI>Spiritual;</HI> this is from Chri&s;t as Law-giver; and is laid on by the In&s;trumental interven|tion of the Church as his Herald Proclaiming his will: Another <HI>civil,</HI> whereby we are bound to external Pun|ni&s;hment if we contravene &s;uch a con&s;titution; this is from the Magi&s;trate: of this, not of the former the Author's A&s;&s;ertion is to be under&s;tood; otherwi&s;e it is fal&s;e: For that Obligation is no way from the Magi|&s;trate.
<PB N="30" REF="18">His third rea&s;on is, <HI>the Magi&s;trate can null any Obligation laid on by the Church repre&s;entative:</HI> as if they do pre&s;cribe &s;ome indifferent rites and ceremonies to be ob&s;erved by all; he forbidding them the former &s;up|po&s;ed Obligation is null; otherwi&s;e the&s;e ab&s;urditier would follow. 1. That there <HI>are two Supream Powers in a Nation at once.</HI> 2. That <HI>a man lyeth under different Obligations to the &s;ame thing.</HI> 3. <HI>The &s;ame action may be a duty and a &s;in, viz.</HI> Being forbidden by the one Power and commanded by the other. <HI>An&s;.</HI> 1. He &s;uppo&s;eth (which we will never yield to him) that <HI>ceremonies may be indifferent and impo&s;eable by men.</HI> Nay, all the Ceremonies of God's wor&s;hip, being wor&s;hip them&s;elves, are Chri&s;t's in&s;titution; otherwi&s;e but will-wor&s;hip: And &s;o him|&s;elf under&s;tandeth Ceremonies <HI>p.</HI> 68. It is like forgetting what he here &s;aid. 2. It concerneth the Author as much as it doth us to an&s;wer his own Objection, for he a&s;cribeth to the Church an <HI>intrin&s;ecal power of Di&s;cipline:</HI> Now &s;uppo&s;e one be excommunicated; the Church commandeth it, the Magi&s;trate forbiddeth it, if his prohibition doth not null the former Obligation, the &s;ame ab&s;urdities follow, that are mentioned in his rea&s;on; if it doth, then this doth as much de&s;troy the pow|er of Di&s;cipline in that Church, which he a&s;&s;ert|eth; as it de&s;troyeth the Power of determining a|bout other Church-matters, which we a&s;&s;ert. 3. We de|ny that the Magi&s;trate by his power can de&s;troy the ob|ligation to any Church-Act (being otherwi&s;e warranta|ble) laid on by the Church, or rather by Chri&s;t, the Church declaring his will (for &s;o the Church only commandeth) other wi&s;e we might as well &s;ay (and it mu&s;t needs be this Man's Opinion; if he believe what here he writeth) that when the Church ordaineth a Mini&s;ter and commandeth him to preach Chri&s;t, the Magi&s;trate by forbidding him to &s;peak any more in that name, maketh null the former Obligation. 'Tis true the Magi&s;trate may, in &s;ome ca&s;es, re&s;train the outward exerci&s;e of what we are &s;o obliged to, and al&s;o when he doth injuriou&s;ly forbid
<PB N="31" REF="18">&s;uch exerci&s;e, we may be, in &s;ome ca&s;es, obliged to cede to this violence: but neither of the&s;e de&s;troyeth our Obligation to our duty; neither the power by which it is laid on; more than the Magi&s;trate doth de&s;troy my Obligation to obey my Father, or his power over me, when he putteth me in Pri&s;on, and &s;o I cannot do what my Father commandeth. The Ab&s;urdities that he would fright us with, do not follow from our opinion, but from his own fal&s;e &s;uppo&s;ition. For the fir&s;t, it is <HI>not ab&s;urd that there &s;hould be two Supream Powers about things &s;o different that one Power cannot have them both for it's formal Object.</HI> Will not the Author grant that Mini|&s;ters have the Supream preaching power, that is not &s;ubordinate to the Magi&s;trate: and the Magi&s;trate the Supream civil Power? Why not then, that they have the Supream ruling Power in Church affairs? The&s;e Powers need not cla&s;h, though they be not &s;ubordinate, being about things &s;o different as are this world and that which is to come, the Soul and the Body: But this man feareth that <HI>Cae&s;ar</HI> be dethroned, if we confe&s;s Chri&s;t to be a King; and &s;o would have Chri&s;t's Kingdome &s;ubordinate to <HI>Cae&s;ar</HI>'s. For the &s;econd, there <HI>cannot be two Obligations</HI> here; for if the Church keep within her Li|mits, her command is Chri&s;t's. And &s;o any contrary ob|ligation mu&s;t be null: if not, her Authority layeth on no Obligation. For the Third, it is the &s;ame Argument, and it admitteth of the &s;ame An&s;wer.</P>
<P>&sect;. 8. Having made the Magi&s;trate the &s;ole Judge and determiner in the matters of the Church even Ceremo|nies them&s;elves: our Author proceedeth <HI>p.</HI> 49. to ex|amine the extent of his Power, a&s;&s;erted in his former Hypothe&s;is, and here he proceedeth by three &s;teps. 1. <HI>That there are &s;ome things left undetermined by the Word.</HI> This we a&s;&s;ent to, as it is here &s;et down; but cannot under&s;tand it (as he doth, which appeareth a little after) <HI>of Ceremonies:</HI> but rather of <HI>bare Circum&s;tances of the wor&s;hip of God</HI> (if he take the&s;e for one, he is very igno|rant of the Nature of both) neither of the <HI>&s;pecies of
<PB N="32" REF="19">Church-Government,</HI> for which this indifferency of things is here a&s;&s;erted. What he di&s;cour&s;eth here of the Na|ture of indifferency, I &s;hall not in&s;i&s;t upon, intending to meet with it el&s;ewhere, Only I take notice of his conce&s;&s;i|on <HI>p</HI> 53. that in <HI>things wholly indifferent both in re&s;pect of their common nature and their u&s;e and end; that are neither com|manded nor tend to the peace and order of the Church, there can be no rea&s;on why the Nature of the&s;e things &s;hould be altered by humane Laws: wherefore matters that are indifferent as to a command, but are much conducing to the peace and order of the Church are the proper matter of humane con&s;titutions concerning the Churches Policy.</HI> Let it be here con&s;idered that the&s;e things are not properly indifferent, but com|manded, <HI>viz.</HI> where the peace and order of the Church is injoyned: and if it be &s;o, it is the part of the Church repre&s;entative, not of the Magi&s;trate, to Judge what things are thus conducible to peace and order; and to hold forth the doing of the&s;e, as the Laws of Chri&s;t.</P>
<P>&sect;. 9. His &s;econd &s;tep is, that <HI>matters of this Nature may be determined and re&s;trained; and that it is not to the wronging of Chri&s;tians liberty, &s;o to do:</HI> And this he doth very largely prove again&s;t &s;ome as he pretendeth of great note and learning; I wonder who they are: For I never met with any who do deny what he a&s;&s;erteth: It is true that many do, and that warrantably, maintain; that where Chri&s;t hath left us free, man hath no Power by his meer will to re&s;train us; e&s;pecially in things that belong to the wor&s;hip of God: but all do acknowled ge &s;o far as I know, that in things (though not expre&s;ly com|manded) which by their nature or circum&s;tances are made conducible to the ends that Chri&s;t hath enjoyned us to endeavour, the Church may enjoyn us; and that without making any new Laws; but by declaring the will of God. This and no more do all the arguments, which the Author with much pains hath &s;et down, con|clude. And indeed, if our author had once proved the <HI>Species of Church Government to be indifferent,</HI> we &s;hould not deny it to be determinable and impo&s;eable (not by
<PB N="33" REF="19">the Magi&s;trate, but) by the Church. In the pro&s;ecuti|on of his Arguments, there occur &s;everal things that I cannot a&s;&s;ent to; but they not being to the Que&s;tion in hand, and intending to touch &s;ome of them in a Treati&s;e el&s;e-where, I pa&s;s them here; he hath &s;ome greedy hints after <HI>obeying whatever is commanded, though un|lawful; the non-obligation of the Covenant, &amp;c.</HI> which do di&s;cover his &s;pirit. Though the Author doth &s;tate the Que&s;tion as hath been &s;aid, yet all his rea&s;ons whereby, from <HI>p.</HI> 56. he proveth the <HI>determination of indifferent things, not to take away our liberty,</HI> doth prove as much, that <HI>determination grounded on mans meer will doth not take it away;</HI> for in that ca&s;e there may be left a <HI>liberty of judgment;</HI> and there may be <HI>no nece&s;&s;ity antecedent to the command;</HI> as he &s;aith in his fir&s;t Argument; al&s;o in that ca&s;e, the <HI>determining of the things &s;uppo&s;eth them to be mat|ters of liberty,</HI> which is a &s;econd <HI>medium,</HI> and the <HI>obli|gation in that ca&s;e, is only in re&s;pect of contempt and &s;candal,</HI> which is his third Argument; and the <HI>repealing of the law or cea&s;ing of the authority commanding, may free us of impo&s;itions made by meer will,</HI> which is his fourth Argu|ment. Wherefore the&s;e Arguments prove that which the Author doth not own, if they prove any thing, which is a token that they prove nothing at all. But that I may &s;hortly an&s;wer them. The fir&s;t Argument is inconcludent; for though <HI>radical liberty,</HI> (<HI>i. e.</HI> a right to do or not do) be con&s;i&s;tent with <HI>&s;uch commands, as men, without warrant from God, lay on us,</HI> (their authori|ty never being able to de&s;troy that right given to us which is founded on the will of God) yet the&s;e com|mands are <HI>an unlawful taking away of the exerci&s;e of our liberty:</HI> for where neither Scripture nor Rea&s;on (which are Gods law) do bind, mans will ought not to bind; e&s;pecially in the things of Religion. He hath here, <HI>p.</HI> 57. a gird by the way at them who hold <HI>one po&s;ture of receiving the Lords Supper to be nece&s;&s;ary,</HI> as more de&s;troy|ing liberty, than doth the command of the Magi&s;trate impo&s;ing one po&s;ture. <HI>An&s;w.</HI> If they hold this without
<PB N="34" REF="20">warrant from the word of the Lord; I yield to what he &s;aith; but if they can prove that we ought in this to imitate Chri&s;t, and keep a table-ge&s;ture as he did; it is no de&s;troying our liberty, unle&s;s he think it le&s;s liberty to be bound to the will of Chri&s;t, declared by his exam|ple, than it is to be bound to the will of men. Other fal&s;hoods I pa&s;s over (it not being my intention to touch every thing) but I wonder at a gro&s;s a&s;per&s;ion that he layeth on the Apo&s;tle <HI>Paul,</HI> viz. <HI>that he did u&s;e the Jew|i&s;h Ceremonies,</HI> (<HI>as that he circumci&s;ed</HI> Timothy) <HI>when they were not only</HI> mortuae <HI>but</HI> mortiferae, and that, where there was no opinion of their nece&s;&s;ity. What is it I pray to &s;ay they were <HI>mortiferae,</HI> but that it was &s;in to u&s;e them? (for when they were <HI>mortuae,</HI> they were indiffe|rent, not as to the opinion of their nece&s;&s;ity, but as to their u&s;e) then <HI>Paul</HI> u&s;ed them when it was &s;in to u&s;e them. I hope the Author will not own this when he is better advi&s;ed: but we &s;ee whither zeal for an errour will lead men. His other Arguments run on the &s;ame mi&s;take, <HI>viz.</HI> they prove that <HI>radical liberty is not taken away whatever be commanded:</HI> but they prove not that when men command without warrant from the Lord, they hinder that exerci&s;e of liberty that the Lord alloweth us. Wherefore I need not in&s;i&s;t on any further An&s;wer to them. <HI>p.</HI> 59. He maketh this diffe|rence between <HI>laws concerning Eccle&s;ia&s;tical and Civil things;</HI> that the&s;e bind <HI>extra ca&s;um &s;candali &amp; contemp|tus,</HI> tho&s;e <HI>not &s;o;</HI> whether this doth con&s;i&s;t with his o|pinion that both the&s;e Laws are from the Magi&s;trate, let it be con&s;idered. I thought that the different way of obligation had been from the different Authorities, not from the things about which the Laws do conver&s;e: and that violation of all the Magi&s;trates Laws, had been alike oppo&s;ite to his Authority. I mean, where the things are of equal moment, as certainly may be in things Civil, and Eccle&s;ia&s;tical. The wi&s;e advice of <HI>Ambro&s;e</HI> to <HI>Augu&s;tine</HI> (which he citeth <HI>p.</HI> 60, 61.) I do with <HI>Augu&s;tine</HI> reverence as <HI>coele&s;te graculum:</HI> &s;o it be
<PB N="35" REF="20">under&s;tood of Cu&s;tomes truly indifferent: but that the things we plead about, and that the Author would permit to the will of the Magi&s;trate; are &s;uch, we can|not yield: Wherefore all this his pains about indiffe|rent things, is to &s;mall purpo&s;e. what he &s;aith, <HI>p.</HI> 62. of &s;uper&s;tition in the imagined nece&s;&s;ity of things really indifferent, I will el&s;ewhere examine; and what others al&s;o have alledged to that purpo&s;e.</P>
<P>&sect;. 10. His third &s;tep is to &s;et bounds to the re&s;traint of Chri&s;tian liberty, where his fir&s;t rule is, that <HI>nothing be impo&s;ed as nece&s;&s;ary, but what is clearly revealed in the word of God.</HI> But what if it be revealed, &s;o as it is vi&s;ible to them who read and &s;earch attentively; though it be not <HI>clearly revealed?</HI> mu&s;t &s;uch things be &s;lighted, as no part of Gods will? but of this we have &s;aid enough before. The &s;econd rule is, that <HI>nothing be determined but what is &s;ufficiently known to be indifferent in its own nature.</HI> The way to know what is &s;uch, he maketh to be, by <HI>taking the primitive Church, and the reformed Churches to be Judges in this.</HI> I confe&s;s, their deci&s;ion &s;hould have much weight; but we dare make none Judge, but God &s;peak|ing in the Scriptures. What if Chri&s;t hath in Scripture &s;ignified his will in a point, and yet the&s;e Churches looked on it, and u&s;ed it as a thing indifferent? mu&s;t we then think it indifferent? I hope not. This is to lay too much weight on men: e&s;pecially con&s;idering that the my&s;tery of iniquity (which did pro&s;titute all or mo&s;t of Chri&s;ts In&s;titutions to mens will; as if they had been indifferent things) began early to work in the primitive Church, 2 <HI>The&s;.</HI> 2.2. and few reform|ed Churches want their own Lees; from which the Lord is yet daily purging them. Wherefore I think (with &s;ubmi&s;&s;ion to better judgments) a &s;urer &s;tandard, to know what is indifferent, to be this; <HI>what cannot be proved to be determined by the Lord in Scripture, and is not of the Law of nature, neither primarily nor &s;econdarily; that is to be thought indifferent.</HI> Pa&s;&s;ing his other rules; in pro&s;ecuting the la&s;t, he openeth a door to <HI>humane cere|monies,</HI>
<PB N="36" REF="21">(though he &s;eem to &s;peak again&s;t them) by approving the <HI>Fea&s;t of Dedication,</HI> the <HI>Jewi&s;h Ceremonies in the Pa&s;&s;over:</HI> &s;ure the&s;e were &s;ome more than ordinary decency; neither were to be e&s;teemed of the &s;ame rank (as he doth) with <HI>building of Synagogues, hours of prayer,</HI> which are meer order: the continuation of the Pa&s;&s;|over by <HI>Hezekiah</HI> which was tran&s;ient; no recurrent fa&s;t; and had a rea&s;on then urgent; and the fea&s;t of <HI>Purim</HI> which was a Civil &s;olemnity: and the fa&s;ts of the <HI>4th, 5th,</HI> and <HI>10th</HI> Months; which were occa&s;ional for the captivity, and expired with it. But of this matter I treat at large el&s;ewhere.</P>
<P>&sect;. 11. In his <HI>5th</HI> Hypothe&s;is, there is an unwary ex|pre&s;&s;ion, <HI>viz.</HI> that <HI>things determined, as afore&s;aid, by law|ful authority in the Church</HI> (which to him is the Magi|&s;trate) <HI>do bind the con&s;cience.</HI> I &s;uppo&s;e he meaneth, that we are bound to obey for con&s;cience &s;ake; and not that Civil Authority by it &s;elf doth reach the Con&s;ci|ence, which Prote&s;tants with good rea&s;on deny again&s;t the Papi&s;ts.</P>
<P>The re&s;t of his fir&s;t part needeth not our Animad|ver&s;ions, &s;eeing it containeth nothing contrary to Pre&s;|byterial Government; but rather a&s;&s;erteth &s;everal parts of it: wherefore I &s;hall only &s;et down briefly his A&s;&s;er|tions, many of which are &s;o many Conce&s;&s;ions to us. He A&s;&s;erteth, (<HI>cap.</HI> 3.) that <HI>the law of Nature dictates that there mu&s;t be a &s;ociety of men for the wor&s;hip of God;</HI> that is a Church And (<HI>cap.</HI> 4.) that <HI>there mu&s;t be a go|vernment in this &s;ociety.</HI> Where he maketh 6 things in this Government to be <HI>juris naturalis;</HI> 1. That <HI>there be a di&s;tinction of per&s;ons, and a &s;uperiority both of power and order in &s;ome over the re&s;t.</HI> 2. That <HI>the per&s;ons &s;o above others have re&s;pect paid them &s;utable to the nature of their imployment.</HI> (cap. 5.) The third thing is, <HI>that all things either pertaining to the immediate wor&s;hip of God, or belong|ing to the Government of the Church be performed with the greate&s;t &s;olemnity and decency that may be,</HI> (cap. 6.) Fourth|ly, <HI>that there be a way agreed upon to determine and decide
<PB N="37" REF="21">all the controver&s;ies ari&s;ing in the Church, which immediately tend to the breaking of the peace and unity of it.</HI> Where he pleadeth for the definitive &s;entence in the <HI>major</HI> part, where power is equal; and for liberty of appeals, where there is &s;ubordination; as being of natural right: and that this &s;ubordination mu&s;t be in a Society con&s;i&s;ting of many Companies or Congregations. (cap. 7.) Fifth|ly, <HI>that all who are are admitted unto this Society, mu&s;t con|&s;ent to be governed by the laws of that Society.</HI> (cap. 8.) Sixthly, <HI>that in a well-ordered Society,</HI> (and &s;o in the Church) <HI>every offender again&s;t the rules-of that Society, mu&s;t give an account of his actions to the Governours of that Society; and &s;ubmit to the cen&s;ures of it, according to the Judgment of the Officers of it.</HI></P>
<P>All this we accept of as truth, but how this la&s;t doth con&s;i&s;t with his putting all power of juri&s;diction in the hand of the Magi&s;trate, and leaving the Church-Officers only power of Preaching and Admini&s;tring the Sacra|ments, (of which before) I cannot under&s;tand. So much for the fir&s;t part of his <HI>Irenicum.</HI></P>
</DIV2>
<DIV2 N="2" TYPE="part">
<HEAD>PART II. CAP. 1, 2.</HEAD>
<P>&sect;. 1. IN his &s;econd part we have al&s;o &s;ome conce&s;&s;i|ons to be taken notice of, as <HI>cap.</HI> 2. <HI>p.</HI> 154. that <HI>there mu&s;t be a Form of Government, as nece&s;&s;ary, not by Nature only, but by a Divine Law.</HI> This we receive as truth, and do thus improve it <HI>ad hominem:</HI> The Au|thor cannot &s;hew us any expre&s;s Law in Scripture, com|manding 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 Apo&s;tolick pra|ctice; they had a Form of Government, <HI>ergo,</HI> &s;o mu&s;t we; &s;eeing it is as needful to us as it was to them. Now if this be &s;o, why doth the Author di&s;pute &s;o much again&s;t our rea&s;oning from Apo&s;tolick practice (where the ca&s;e is alike) for this particular Form of Govern|ment,
<PB N="38" REF="22">as being e&s;tabli&s;hed by Divine Law? If their practice be a &s;ufficient evidence of a Divine Law (be|&s;ide the Law of Nature) for this, <HI>that there be a Form:</HI> why is it not as &s;ignificant of a Divine Law for this, <HI>that this is the Form;</HI> where the ca&s;e of them and us is alike.</P>
<P>&sect;. 2. We receive al&s;o as a conce&s;&s;ion, <HI>p.</HI> 157. <HI>that there is a Divine Warrant for a National Church; and for a Na|tional Form of Church-Government.</HI> Al&s;o, cap. 2. he con|cedeth <HI>that the Government of the Church ought to be ad|mini&s;tred by Officers of Divine Appointment, is of Divine Right.</HI> Where, in one word, he de&s;troyeth (unawares) all that he &s;aith for maintaining the lawfulne&s;s of Epi|&s;copal Government; for he doth not deny that Bi&s;hops as ruling over Presbyters, and having more power than their Brethren, are of Humane Con&s;titution; and &s;o they cannot be Officers of Divine appointment: If &s;o, then by this Conce&s;&s;ion the Church ought not to be ru|led by them; and &s;o Epi&s;copal Government is unlaw|ful. I know not, if he did fore&s;ee this Argument taken out of him&s;elf: But in explaining his Conce&s;&s;ion he would fain &s;eem to &s;ay &s;ome other thing than he hath indeed &s;aid: For he &s;aith, that <HI>he here taketh the Church for the Members of the Church: So that his meaning is, there mu&s;t be a &s;tanding perpetual Mini&s;try:</HI> And this he prov|eth largely. This doth no ways explain what he hath &s;aid: For it is one thing <HI>that it be Divine Appointment that there are Officers;</HI> and another thing <HI>that the&s;e Offi|cers be &s;uch as God hath appointed. Jeroboam</HI> when he made Prie&s;ts of the lowe&s;t of the People, kept Divine In&s;titution &s;o far, that he made Prie&s;ts; and did make that work common to all: And yet his Prie&s;ts 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 Ap|pointment; except the&s;e Officers be &s;uch as God hath In&s;tituted, and not &s;uch as men have devi&s;ed. And be&s;ides this, the Law of Nature dictateth that there &s;hould be Rulers in the Church, di&s;tinct from the Ruled,
<PB N="39" REF="22">as he had formerly ob&s;erved: Wherefore he mu&s;t here either trifle, or &s;ay &s;ome more, <HI>viz.</HI> that <HI>the Lord mu&s;t appoint the&s;e &s;orts of Officers that &s;hould govern his Church:</HI> for the Author is here &s;peaking of what is of Divine po&s;itive Right; having formerly &s;hewed what is of Divine Natural Right.</P>
<P>&sect;. 3. In the third Chap. we have the Que&s;tion &s;tated; in &s;peaking of the Church as comprehending many par|ticular Congregations, (and &s;o excluding the Inde|pendent way from this Competition) he compareth the&s;e two forms of Government, <HI>viz.</HI> 1. <HI>The parti|cular Officers of &s;everal Churches, acting in equality of power, called a Colledge of Presbyters.</HI> 2. <HI>A &s;uperiour or|der above the Mini&s;try, having the Power of Juri&s;diction and Ordination belonging to it.</HI> Now the Que&s;tion is not whether of the&s;e cometh neare&s;t to the primitive pat|tern: But whether either of them be &s;etled by Divine Right; &s;o as that the Church is bound to ob&s;eeve it. He holds the Negative: We the affirmative: and we &s;ay, that the former of the&s;e two is <HI>Juris Divini.</HI></P>
<P>&sect;. 4. For proving his opinion, he undertaketh to e|nervate all the Pleas which are made for the Divine Right of either of the&s;e: Five he propo&s;eth, <HI>viz.</HI> 1. <HI>A former Law &s;tanding in force under the Go&s;pel.</HI> 2. <HI>Some plain in&s;titution of a new Law under the Go&s;pel.</HI> 3. <HI>The ob|ligatory Nature of Apo&s;tolical practice.</HI> 4. <HI>The general &s;ence of the primitive Church.</HI> 5. <HI>The Judgement of the chief Divines and Churches &s;ince the Reformation.</HI> Of the&s;e he di&s;cour&s;eth &s;everally: And we &s;hall give our &s;ence of them as in following him we come at them. But fir&s;t I mu&s;t here note a few things. 1. It is an injuri|ous way of &s;tateing the Que&s;tion about this Divine Right, to exclude any who put in for it, from the liber|ty of Competition: Now he knoweth that others be&s;ides the&s;e plead a Divine Right of their way; as <HI>Era&s;tians</HI> will have the keys given by Chri&s;t to the Magi&s;trate: Independents, to the Community, or at lea&s;t the Of|ficers of a particular Church (Popery is not excluded,
<PB N="40" REF="23">&s;eeing it &s;tandeth on the &s;ame bottom with Epi&s;copacy) though I think the Re&s;olution of the que&s;tion about Di|vine Right, might have laid both the&s;e a&s;ide; yet I think the &s;tating of it might have taken them in; and they might have a fair hearing; le&s;t &s;ome by &s;eeing Presbytery and Epi&s;copacy laid a&s;ide as of no Divine &s;tamp, might be tempted to take of either of the other two for Chri&s;ts Government, rather than leave the mat|ter wholly at an uncertainty, and the will of men. But I ob&s;erve that though the one of the&s;e he doth altoge|ther &s;light; yet the other he doth not pa&s;s, out of any mi&s;regard to it; for he laboureth to take all power by Chri&s;t's gift, out of the hands of Presbyters and Bi|&s;hops, that the Magi&s;trate might have it <HI>in &s;olidum.</HI></P>
<P>&sect;. 5. 2. I ob&s;erve, for further clearing the &s;tate of the Que&s;tion, that all other parts of the&s;e two forms of Government, are confe&s;&s;ed to be <HI>juris divini, vel na|turalis, vel po&s;itivi,</HI> (as from his conce&s;&s;ions have been manife&s;t, and will yet more appear) only the matter of Parity or Superiority of Mini&s;ters is in que&s;tion: and it being &s;o, I propo&s;e this to be con&s;idered: that Pari|ty be of Divine Right, it is &s;ufficient, 1. That Chri&s;t hath given power to all Mini&s;ters to rule the Church. 2. That he hath not given a greater &s;hare of it to &s;ome than to others. 3. That it is his will that as he hath di&s;tributed this power equally, &s;o that no man make it un|equal; &s;eeing that cannot be but by taking from the re&s;t what Chri&s;t hath given them, and giving to one what he hath not given him. If the&s;e three be granted, Parity of Power is Chri&s;ts Will, and &s;o of Divine Right. Now our Author agreeth to the fir&s;t two as Truth: For the fir&s;t he a&s;&s;erteth <HI>in terminis;</HI> the &s;econd he cannot deny, while he a&s;&s;erteth Superiority not to be <HI>juris divini;</HI> the que&s;tion then is only about the third, <HI>viz.</HI> When Chri&s;t hath given equal power to his Mini&s;ters, whe|ther men may make it unequal, by &s;ubjecting one of them to another; abridging the power of one, and inlarging the power of another: Or which is all one;
<PB N="41" REF="23">whether it be in the power of men, when Chri&s;t hath made but one Officer: to &s;et up another of their own devi&s;ing, who &s;hall have a power that Chri&s;t never gave to any Officer in his Church? I am &s;ure, we have this clear advantage; that Presbyters acting in Parity, do keep them&s;elves within the bounds of Chri&s;ts In&s;titu|tion; and can &s;hew his warrant for &s;o doing; whereas &s;et|ting up a Bi&s;hop over them is without that line, and can be warranted by no divine In&s;titution. Let it then be con&s;idered whether of the&s;e is the &s;afe&s;t way for us to take.</P>
<P>&sect;. 6. 3. I take notice that the Pleas that he ennu|merateth for a particular form of Government, are not all which may be alledged; there may be many &s;ignifica|tions of the will of God in Scripture, that are neither &s;et down in the plain terms of a Law, nor expre&s;&s;ed by Apo&s;tolical practice. We draw good con&s;equences from Promi&s;es, Reproofs, &amp;c. which may &s;hew us what is our duty. 4. Let it be minded that it is not needful for a&s;&s;erting of Divine Right, that we prove it from all the&s;e Topicks: one demon&s;tration that it is the will of God that &s;uch a thing be, is &s;ufficient. 5. The que&s;ti|on being &s;tated as before, the probation will be incum|bent upon him, who a&s;&s;erteth that it is lawful for men to make them unequal in power, whom Chri&s;t hath made Pairs: we a&s;&s;ert that the power of Mini&s;ters that is of Divine Right, is equal; which the Author doth not deny: he a&s;&s;erteth further, that men may re&s;train this Power in &s;ome, and enlarge it in others; for this he mu&s;t &s;hew warrant; for <HI>affirmant, incumbit probatio:</HI> we deny it; and here we might re&s;t, till it can be &s;hewed that Chri&s;t hath given &s;uch power to men, to cut and carve on his In&s;titutions. The <HI>Divine Right of Parity</HI> is built on the <HI>want of Divine Right of Imparity.</HI> Notwith&s;tand|ing we hope, <HI>(ex abundanti)</HI> to make other Pleas for it &s;tand good, which he laboureth to make void.</P>
<P>&sect;. 7. The fir&s;t plea from a <HI>&s;tanding law in the Jewi&s;h Church</HI> we do not in&s;i&s;t on, knowing that in matters of
<PB N="42" REF="24">In&s;titution, the Old Te&s;tament is no pattern for the New. Neither are we obliged to in&s;i&s;t on this Plea, as he alledgeth, becau&s;e &s;ome of ours do &s;ome times make u&s;e of their Example, as in proving a &s;ubordination of Courts: For 1. It is not in&s;tituted, but of the law of Nature; &s;uppo&s;ing once the unity of more Congregati|ons: now what is taught by Nature may well be confirm|ed to us by the Law of God to the <HI>Jews;</HI> though we be not bound by that law, where there is not that rea&s;on. Again, <HI>Jewi&s;h</HI> example &s;hould have weight with us, where their ca&s;e is not peculiar; &s;eeing their practice came from an Infinitely wi&s;e Lawgiver: but this holdeth not in imparity, or &s;ubordination of Officers: It is known that the High Prie&s;t was Typical: that the Prie&s;thood was annexed to one Tribe, for a peculiar Rea&s;on: the&s;e things do not concern us.</P>
</DIV2>
<DIV2 N="4" TYPE="chapter">
<HEAD>CHAP. IV.</HEAD>
<P>HE cometh to the &s;econd Plea for a particular form of Government, <HI>viz. Chri&s;ts in&s;tituting it by a new Law,</HI> where he alledgeth, that <HI>it is more hotly pleaded by many, that Chri&s;t mu&s;t do it, than that he hath done it.</HI> This is a mi&s;-repre&s;entation, to &s;ay no wor&s;e. If it be not proved by the A&s;&s;ertors of Presbyterial Government that Chri&s;t hath in&s;tituted that form of Government, let their cau&s;e fall to the ground. We are ready to acknow|ledge that it were ra&s;hne&s;s, and a limiting of the Ho|ly One, to &s;ay that he mu&s;t in&s;titute a particular form: if we were not otherwi&s;e &s;atisfied that he hath done it. But being convinced of that; we may be very much confirmed in our Opinion, by the con&s;ideration of the&s;e arguments, that hold forth, how fit, and how &s;utable to the wi&s;dom of God, and the Admini&s;tration of Chri&s;ts Go&s;pel Kingdom it is, that he &s;hould take this cour&s;e; and not leave the affairs of his Hou&s;e to mans will, or
<PB N="43" REF="24">lu&s;t rather. This is not pre&s;cribing to him; but a declaring of the fitne&s;s of what he hath done. More|over, we do not, neither ever did we argue barely from the nece&s;&s;ity of a particular form to be in&s;tituted by Chri&s;t, con&s;idering the thing it &s;elf only: but from &s;ome Scripture ground holding forth the nece&s;&s;ity of it. Now if the Lord in the contrivance of the Go&s;pel hath made it nece&s;&s;ary to his de&s;ign that there be a form of his ap|pointment, and hath &s;ignified this to us by his word: it is no ra&s;hne&s;s to a&s;&s;ert the nece&s;&s;ity of it; even though we could not (through our darkne&s;s) certainly deter|mine what is that form, in all the particulars of it. But I come to examine what he hath &s;aid again&s;t the Rea&s;ons that our Authors do bring for the fitne&s;s of a particular form of Chri&s;ts in&s;tituting.</P>
<P>&sect;. 2. The fir&s;t of them is taken from comparing Chri&s;t the Lawgiver under the New Te&s;tament, with <HI>Mo&s;es</HI> under the Old Te&s;tament; and it is thus in&s;tituted, <HI>Heb.</HI> 3.2, 5, 6. That as <HI>Mo&s;es</HI> was faithful in that Hou&s;e, as a Servant; much more was Chri&s;t as a Son; if then <HI>Mo|&s;es</HI> was &s;o faithful as to declare the Will of God con|cerning the Government of the Church, and that par|ticularly what Form &s;hould be u&s;ed, we mu&s;t not think that Chri&s;t hath left this undone. To this he an&s;wer|eth, 1. <HI>Faithfulne&s;s is the di&s;charge of a Tru&s;t: So that the faithfulne&s;s of Chri&s;t and</HI> Mo&s;es <HI>lyeth in doing the Work that the Lord laid on them: and this was to be Mediators, the one Typical the other True.</HI> Mo&s;es <HI>had the Pattern &s;hewed him in the Mount, and therefore faithfulne&s;s required that he &s;hould &s;ettle that Form, and no other: But it cannot be made appear that Chri&s;t hath any Command from his Father of &s;etling one Form of Government.</HI> So he, <HI>p.</HI> 176. To which I reply, 1. Our Argument may be &s;o laid, as this An&s;wer doth not at all touch it, thus; <HI>It is the Will of God</HI> (and &s;o entru&s;ted to the care of Chri&s;t) <HI>that there &s;hould be a Government in the Church;</HI> as is confe&s;&s;ed by our Author: This Government mu&s;t be managed, <HI>hic &amp; nunc,</HI> in &s;ome particular Form, as &s;en&s;e and rea&s;on
<PB N="44" REF="25">teacheth: Now that Chri&s;t might be faithful as <HI>Mo&s;es</HI> was in the di&s;charge of this Tru&s;t, it was needful that he &s;hould &s;et down a particular Form to be u&s;ed by all; or appoint &s;ome who &s;hould determine what the particular Form &s;hould be. But according to this mans opinion, he hath done neither of the&s;e: Not the fir&s;t, for that he pleadeth again&s;t: Nor the &s;econd, for our Author can &s;hew us no Scripture where it is intru&s;ted to any: And if we &s;hould require a plain and direct Law for this, in expre&s;s and formal terms, as he doth of us in the like ca&s;e; he would find it a hard task: Be&s;ides, if we con|&s;ult Scripture, there is far more to be &s;aid for the power of the Church, than for the power of the Magi&s;trate in &s;uch a determination: And rea&s;on al&s;o may, at lea&s;t, &s;et them in equal competition, if not ca&s;t the Scales in the favour of the Church, it being a matter purely Eccle|&s;ia&s;tical, that is contended about; and yet this man giveth the deciding power in this to the Magi&s;trate. It is &s;trange if the Government of the Church under the Old Te&s;tament be &s;o plain, and that under the New be left at &s;uch uncertainty.</P>
<P>&sect;. 3. 2. That <HI>Mo&s;es</HI> and Chri&s;t are compared as Me|diators, I do not deny: but this maketh nothing for, but again&s;t what he intendeth: For their Mediatory Work taketh in the management of all the dealings that are between God and his People; and (as it is here &s;poken of) is chiefly meant of outward Admini&s;trations, of Teaching and Ruling: For the inward Admini&s;trations of &s;atisfaction for &s;in, and communicating the Spirit to Believers, are not applicable to <HI>Mo&s;es:</HI> Now the &s;etling the Government of the Church cannot but be a part of this Mediatory work, it being of &s;o much and &s;o near concernment to the &s;piritual good of believers: Wherefore Chri&s;t and <HI>Mo&s;es</HI> are here compared in their faithfulne&s;s, in &s;etling of Church-Government as well as in other things. This is clearly confirm'd out of the 5th <HI>v.</HI> of that <HI>chap.</HI> where it is &s;aid, that <HI>Mo&s;es was faithful in all his hou&s;e:</HI> Then the Law of Compari&s;on
<PB N="45" REF="25">&s;aith that Chri&s;t is al&s;o there &s;aid to be faithful in all his Hou&s;e, <HI>i. e.</HI> in all the matters of the Church: Now it cannot be denyed, but Church-Government is one, and that a main one, of the matters of the Church. Wherefore Chri&s;t and <HI>Mo&s;es</HI> are here compared in their faithfulne&s;s, in this Admini&s;tration. 3. His An&s;wer doth not well hang together, when fir&s;t he will have them here compared as Mediators, as if the matter of Church-Government were impertinent to that wherein they are compared; and yet &s;ubjoyneth, that <HI>Mo&s;es his faithfulne&s;s lay in keeping clo&s;e to the pattern &s;hewed him:</HI> Whereas <HI>Chri&s;t had no &s;uch command laid on him, nor pattern &s;hewed him.</HI> If the faithfulne&s;s of <HI>Mo&s;es</HI> did ly in keeping Gods command, about Church-Govern|ment; how is he only &s;poken of as a Typical Mediator? and how is Chri&s;t's faithfulne&s;s compared with this faithfulne&s;s of <HI>Mo&s;es,</HI> &s;eeing he received no &s;uch com|mand?</P>
<P>&sect;. 4. 'Tis fal&s;e, <HI>that Chri&s;t received no Command about the Govenment of the Church:</HI> for the Scripture is clear that he is made <HI>head of the Church; hath the Government laid on his &s;houlders; hath received all power in Hea|ven and in Earth, &amp;c.</HI> If he be by his Office King of the Church, &s;ure it is his Office and Tru&s;t to &s;ettle the Government of his Church. This reply he maketh to him&s;elf, and an&s;wereth to it (<HI>p.</HI> 177.) in two or three things: Fir&s;t, he granteth that <HI>Chri&s;t is King of his Church, and doth govern it outwardly by his Laws, and inwardly by his Spirit; but we mu&s;t not therefore &s;ay that one Form of Government is nece&s;&s;ary, whether it be contained in his Laws, or dictated by his Spirit or not.</HI> To this I reply, 1. Neither do we make any &s;uch Inference: If we prove not one Form to be contained in his Laws, we &s;hall pa&s;s from this Argument. That which we &s;ay is, that becau&s;e he is King, and a faithful King, as <HI>Mo|&s;es</HI> was, who &s;etled a Form of Government, therefore a Form is contained in his Laws: Not that it is nece&s;&s;a|ry whether it be contained in his Laws or not. 2. If
<PB N="46" REF="26">Chri&s;t be King and Governs the Church by his Laws, and that outwardly; how can it be that the particular Form of its Government is what many may think fit, and not of Chri&s;ts In&s;titution? For the Church is governed by a particular Form, not by a general notion of a Go|vernment (for <HI>univer&s;ale non exi&s;tit ni&s;i in &s;uis &s;ingulari|bus</HI>) if then the particular form be of mans appointing, the Church is not outwardly governed by Chri&s;ts Laws, but by mens; for men make the Laws, or Rule of its Government. If a King &s;hould &s;end a Deputy to Go|vern a Nation, and give him leave to choo&s;e what Form of Government he would, either by him&s;elf, or by a Council where he &s;hould have but equal power with the re&s;t: it could not be &s;aid in proper &s;peech, that that Nation is Governed by the Kings Laws (for he makes not the Laws of its Government) but by the Laws of them who determines the particular Form of Govern|ment. Yea, &s;uppo&s;e the King &s;hould make &s;ome Laws about it, as that nothing &s;hould be acted contrary to his Will, or Intere&s;t, that there &s;hould be Government, and not Anarchy, that there &s;hould be Rulers, and Ru|led, &amp;c. Yet the Nation may rather be &s;aid to be Go|verned by the Laws of him who determineth the parti|cular Form: &s;eeing the Government doth e&s;&s;entially con&s;i&s;t in the management of a particular Form, and not in &s;ome general directions. This is ea&s;ily applicable to our ca&s;e: for our Author will have Chri&s;t to give &s;ome General directious about Church-Government; and men to determine and contrive the Form: Now let any judge then, whether the Church in that ca&s;e be Go|verned by the Laws of Chri&s;t, or the Laws of men? Wherefore I conclude that this An&s;wer de&s;troys it &s;elf, while it denyeth a <HI>particular Form in&s;tituted by Chri&s;t,</HI> and yet will have the <HI>Church outwardly governed by his Laws.</HI> 2. He &s;aith, the <HI>main original of mi&s;takes here, is the con|founding of the external and internal government of the Church of Chri&s;t: and thence, when&s;oever men read of Chri&s;ts power, authority and government, they fancy it re|fers
<PB N="47" REF="26">to the outward government of the Church of God, which is intended of this internal Mediatory power over the hearts and con&s;ciences of men.</HI> Reply. We are willing to di|&s;tingui&s;h the&s;e; and I believe he cannot &s;hew any of ours who do confound them: yea, we will go further in di&s;tingui&s;hing the outward and inward Government of the Church than he doth: and I may retort this charge on him&s;elf, hoping to make it appear that he confound|eth the&s;e two, and that this is the ground of his mi&s;takes. The Government of the Church is then two fold: In|ward, and Outward: both the&s;e may be di&s;tingui&s;hed ac|cording to divers objects of this Government: for In|ward Government is either that which is exerci&s;ed in the con&s;cience; and &s;o is invi&s;ible: or that which is exerci&s;ed in the Church, or in matters that are properly &s;piritual and not civil; though they be vi&s;ible to men, and &s;o outward in re&s;pect of the con&s;cience. So outward Government is either &s;uch in re&s;pect to the con&s;cience, and it is that we have now de&s;cribed; or outward in re|&s;pect to the Church, <HI>viz.</HI> That that which is exerci&s;ed in matters relating to the Church, and yet are not pro|perly Spiritual but Civil, and concern the Church, not as it is a Church but as it is a Society. Or we may di|&s;tingui&s;h thus, the Government of the Church is either invi&s;ible, <HI>viz.</HI> in the con&s;cience; or vi&s;ible; and this is either in things that are Eccle&s;ia&s;tical, and &s;o it is in|ward in re&s;pect to the Church: or in things that are Ci|vil, and &s;o it is outward. The fir&s;t of the&s;e is imme|diately exerci&s;ed by Chri&s;t; the &s;econd mediately, and that by the Guides of the Church, as his Deputies; the third by the Magi&s;trate as a &s;ervant of Chri&s;t in his Kingdom that he hath over all the World. I hope now the outward and inward Government of the Church of Chri&s;t is &s;ufficiently di&s;tingui&s;hed, and not &s;o con|founded as to be the cau&s;e of mi&s;takes about it. But now let us &s;ee whether he him&s;elf, who chargeth others with this confounding, be not guilty of it; and doth not here mi&s;take the truth by confounding the Internal
<PB N="48" REF="27">and the External Government of the Church. It is very evident that it is &s;o: for, 1. He &s;etteth down the bare terms of a di&s;tinction between internal and external Go|vernment; but doth not tell what he meaneth by either of them: Whether the di&s;tinction be to be applyed to the Con&s;cience, and &s;o be meant of invi&s;ible and vi&s;ible Government: Or to the Church, and &s;o be under&s;tood of Eccle&s;ia&s;tical and formal, or of Civil and Objective Government of the Church: We are to &s;eek in this, for all his di&s;tinction. 2. He &s;eemeth confu&s;edly to re|fer to both the&s;e, as he here manageth the di&s;tinction; or at lea&s;t, &s;ome things &s;eem to draw the one way, and &s;ome the other: For when he denyeth Chri&s;ts power and Authority, &s;poken of in the Scripture, to re|fer to the outward Government of the Church, this mu&s;t be meant of that Government which is Civil, not of vi&s;ible Eccle&s;ia&s;tical Government. I hope he will not deny that to be a part of Chri&s;ts Authority. Again, where he granteth Chri&s;ts internal mediatory power over the Con&s;cience; this mu&s;t be meant of his invi&s;ible Government; both becau&s;e it is certain Chri&s;t hath &s;uch a Power, and our Author here denyeth all other power of Government to him! Al&s;o becau&s;e no other power is internal over the Con&s;cience but this. But what-ever be his meaning, this an&s;wer doth not take away the force of our argument, for if he deny the Scriptures, that &s;peak of Chri&s;ts power, Kingdom, and Authori|ty, to be meant of Civil power, but to be meant of vi&s;ible internal power in the Church; this is all we de&s;ire; for if Chri&s;t hath &s;uch a Kingdom; then the management of the vi&s;ible Government of the Church is his tru&s;t; in which his faithfulne&s;s would make him &s;ettle a particular form as <HI>Mo&s;es</HI> did. Only I take no|tice how incon&s;i&s;tent this is with his Principles, &s;eeing he denyeth any vi&s;ible power in the Church (&s;ave that of Word and Sacraments, as it followeth immediately) and putteth all other power in the hand of the Magi|&s;trate, as do all the re&s;t of the <HI>Era&s;tians.</HI> If he deny the
<PB N="49" REF="27">Scriptures, that &s;peak of Chri&s;t's Authority and King|dom, to be meant of Vi&s;ible Eccle&s;ia&s;tical Government, and make them &s;peak only of an invi&s;ible Government over the Con&s;cience; which is exerci&s;ed by his Word and &s;pirit; in this fir&s;t he is contrary to all men, for even <HI>Era&s;tians</HI> them&s;elves do grant that Chri&s;t hath &s;uch a Kingdom; but they would have it managed by the Magi&s;trate; whom they make Chri&s;t's Vicegerent in his Mediatory Kingdom: and others do hold &s;uch a Kingdom of Chri&s;t, and that it is managed by the Of|ficers of his Church. Secondly, he derogateth from the Kingdom of Chri&s;t, denying that which is a con|fiderable part of the exerci&s;e of his Kingly Office: What? is Chri&s;t a King, not only of Angels, but of Men, united in a vi&s;ible Society, the Church; and yet hath no vi&s;ible Government exerci&s;ed in his name a|mong them? this is a ridiculous incon&s;i&s;tency. Third|ly, he is contrary to many Scriptures which &s;peak of Chri&s;ts Kingdom and Authority; and mu&s;t be under|&s;tood of a vi&s;ible Authority exerci&s;ed in a vi&s;ible Go|vernment; &s;uch as <HI>Eph.</HI> 4.10, 11. Setting up of Pa&s;tors there mentioned is a vi&s;ible act: and it is made an act of his Authority, 1 <HI>Cor.</HI> 11.3. Chri&s;t's Head&s;hip is men|tioned with a reference to the ordering the vi&s;ible de|cency of his Wor&s;hip. Al&s;o, <HI>P&s;al.</HI> 2.8. <HI>P&s;al.</HI> 22.27. <HI>P&s;al.</HI> 110.3. <HI>Col.</HI> 1.13. and many other places; which it is &s;trange daring to re&s;trict to the invi&s;ible exerci&s;e of Chri&s;ts Authority in the &s;oul. Fourthly, this is con|trary to all the&s;e Scriptures which &s;peak of the &s;everal outward acts of the exerci&s;e of Chri&s;ts Government; as <HI>gathering a people to him,</HI> I&s;a. 55.4, 5. Acts 15 14, 15, 16, 17. <HI>giving them laws,</HI> I&s;a. 33.2. Mat. 28.20. Mat. 5.17, 19. Ver&s;es, &amp;c. <HI>&s;etting up Officers,</HI> Eph. 4.10.11. <HI>giving them power of Di&s;cipline,</HI> Mat. 16.19. Mat. 18.17, 18. John 20.23. Fifthly, it is contrary to him&s;elf; for Preaching and Admini&s;tring Sacraments are vi&s;ible acts: if then Chri&s;t as King hath inve&s;ted
<PB N="50" REF="28">his Servants with this power (which he confe&s;&s;eth <HI>p.</HI> 177. where al&s;o he confe&s;&s;eth that he Governeth the Church outwardly by his Laws) he mu&s;t have a vi&s;i|ble Government as he is King of his Church. That which he addeth, <HI>viz.</HI> that this is made known to us in the word, but not the other; <HI>viz.</HI> that he hath ap|pointed a particular Form: this I &s;ay, 1. Beggeth the Que&s;tion. 2. De&s;troyeth his An&s;wer, wherein he de|nyeth Chri&s;t's vi&s;ible Government; for this is a part of it, which he granteth.</P>
<P>&sect;. 5. Another An&s;wer he frameth to our Argument from Chri&s;t and <HI>Mo&s;es,</HI> p. 177. <HI>That if the compari&s;on of Chri&s;t and</HI> Mo&s;es <HI>infer an equal exactne&s;s of di&s;po&s;ing every thing in the Church; then we mu&s;t be bound to all circum|&s;tances as the Jews were: but there is this difference between the Old and New Te&s;tament; that there all ceremonies and circum&s;tances were exactly pre&s;cribed; here there are only general rules for circum&s;tantial things; there, the very pins of the Tabernacle were commanded; here it is not &s;o, but a liberty is left for times, place, per&s;ons, &amp;c.</HI> Reply, 1. We do not plead for an equal exactne&s;s in determin|ing all things: We know the Old and New Te&s;tament &s;tate of the Church requireth a diver&s;ity here: but we plead for the equal faithfulne&s;s of Chri&s;t with <HI>Mo&s;es;</HI> now Chri&s;t was intru&s;ted with &s;etting up a Government in the Church as well as <HI>Mo&s;es;</HI> whence it followeth that he behoved to enjoyn the particular Form of it as <HI>Mo&s;es</HI> did: &s;eeing without this, great matters in the Church, even that whereon its Union and Being, as a Society, do hang, are left at a great uncertainty, and expo&s;ed to the will of man, who may and readily will erre. 2. The difference that he maketh between the Law and the Go&s;pel is mo&s;t fal&s;e, <HI>viz.</HI> That there all circum&s;tances of wor&s;hip were determined, here not &s;o: yea, it is with more truth ob&s;erved by &s;ome that more circum&s;tances of wor&s;hip, were left to the pru|dence
<PB N="51" REF="28">of men under the Law, then now under the Go&s;pel: For every one of their actions impo&s;ed; as &s;acrifices, wa&s;hings, &amp;c. had of nece&s;&s;ity abundance of circum&s;tances attending them; as when, how, with what In&s;truments, &amp;c. Wherefore the more ordinan|ces there were, the more circum&s;tances undetermined. There is indeed this difference; that God under the Law did by his command place Religion in many natural circum&s;tances of wor&s;hip; as in the day of Circumci&s;i|on, of killing the Pa&s;&s;over, &amp;c. and &s;o &s;et them above the degree of meer circum&s;tances, which he hath not done under the Go&s;pel: but it doth not follow that all things, even of greaate&s;t moment to Church-Order, and the wor&s;hip of God are now left free, becau&s;e we have not &s;o many Ceremonies as the <HI>Jews</HI> had; for tho&s;e cir|cum&s;tances, which are of Civil and common concern|ment to Religion, and other actions, be left to pru|dence, and matters relating to the Government of the Church, which are of that nature, be al&s;o left free: yet we mu&s;t not for that, think that the Government it &s;elf, as managed, even the &s;ub&s;tance of it (which mu&s;t lie in a particular Form, &s;eeing a general notion of Government is not practicable) is left to the will of men. I hope our Author will not &s;ay that the Form of Government is a circum&s;tance, neither ought he to &s;ay that it is a thing of common concernment to the Church and other Societies: The Church is a Society &s;ingular, and of another Nature than others, <HI>Cant.</HI> 6.9. <HI>She is but one, the only one of her Mother,</HI> therefore her Government mu&s;t be &s;utable; wherefore it ought not to be put in, in the &s;ame ca&s;e with the Natural cir|cum&s;tances that accompany all our actions; which here the Author mo&s;t unwi&s;ely doth.</P>
<P>&sect;. 6. For a third an&s;wer he bringeth rea&s;ons why <HI>all punctillio</HI>'s (as he is plea&s;ed to &s;peak) <HI>&s;hould not be now de|termined as they were under the Law.</HI> In this we do not
<PB N="52" REF="29">contradict him, as appeareth from what is now &s;aid: <HI>Quere non re&s;pondes ad rem?</HI> Neither is it &s;avoury to account the form of Government, by which the vi&s;ible being of the Church doth &s;tand, a punctillio: Such a di|minutive expre&s;&s;ion is not without contempt. But let us hear his Rea&s;ons: The fir&s;t, <HI>p.</HI> 179. is taken from the perfection of the Go&s;pel-&s;tate above the Jewi&s;h: <HI>That Church needed the fe&s;cues of Ceremonies to direct her, and mu&s;t have every part of her Le&s;&s;on &s;et her: This mu&s;t not be &s;till</HI> &s;ub ferula, <HI>and not dare to vary in any Circum&s;tance which doth not concern the thing it &s;elf. As boy a at School hath his Le&s;&s;on and the manner of learning it pre&s;cribed: At the &V;niver&s;ity, more general directions do &s;erve. In that Church every circum&s;tance was determined; in this things moral remain in force, but circum&s;tantials are left more at liberty.</HI></P>
<P><HI>An&s;.</HI> 1. The point in que&s;tion is not here touched: 'Tis not que&s;tioned whether the Go&s;pel-Church &s;hould be loaded with Ceremonies as was the <HI>Jewi&s;h;</HI> nor whe|ther in every Circum&s;tance &s;he be bound by a Law (though he doth fal&s;ly &s;uppo&s;e that the <HI>Jewi&s;h</HI> Church was bound in every Circum&s;tance, as I have already &s;howed) but ra|ther whether &s;he be bound in any thing be&s;ides the moral Law: And particularly whether &s;he be bound to a form <HI>of Church Government.</HI> Such loo&s;e declamations as this, aggravating &s;ome ab&s;urdities impertinent to the thing in hand, are no &s;olid refutations. I hope the Church may be bound to a particular form of Government, <HI>viz.</HI> to parity of Mini&s;ters, and yet have liberty in abundance of circum&s;tances. His example of a <HI>School|boy, and one at the &V;niver&s;ity; of a Son when a Child, and when at Age,</HI> makes nothing again&s;t us: For in both Ca&s;es they are in &s;ubjection to &s;ome po&s;itive commands of the Ma&s;ter or Father: So is the Go&s;pel-Church un|der &s;ome &s;uch Commands, though not &s;o many as the <HI>Jews</HI> were. 2. Is it <HI>contrary to Go&s;pel-perfection</HI> to be un|der the Commands of Chri&s;t as to a Form of Church Go|vernment,
<PB N="53" REF="29">and to be ruled by a way of his contriving? This mu&s;t be a &s;trange kind of perfection that he dreameth of. We believe that the Church is yet &s;o imperfect, and will be while on Earth, that &s;he hath need to be Governed by Chri&s;ts Laws; and is far happier in that Ca&s;e, then if &s;he were left to chu&s;e her own way in matters of &s;o great Concernment as is the Form of Church Government. 3. Is it not as contrary, and far more, to the perfection of the Go&s;pel-Church to be under a form of Government, impo&s;ed by the Magi|&s;trate (as this man would have us) then if it be impo&s;ed by Chri&s;t? Sure Chri&s;ts Yoke is ea&s;ier then mens; and his device mu&s;t 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 Univer&s;al Law binding all: But in things that are equally good to all; it is better to be under Chri&s;ts General, then mans particular Law. Now the thing in debate, Parity or Imparity among Mini&s;ters is attended with the &s;ame conveniences, or inconveniences, in all Countries and Conditions, and while men are prone to Tyranny on the one hand and to divi&s;ions on the other: Wherefore it is no ways unfit that Chri&s;t &s;hould here decide the mat|ter by a general Law. 'Tis not like the Time or place of meeting, which mu&s;t vary in divers places: Nei|ther can he &s;hew us any rea&s;on, why it &s;hould be one way in one Church, and another way in another, except mans plea&s;ure, which is a bad Rule in the matters of Chri&s;t. 4. Whereas he &s;aith that <HI>in the Go&s;pel Church things moral remain in their force; but circum&s;tantials are left at more liberty:</HI> I &s;uppo&s;e he meaneth Natural morality, or things contained in the moral Law; and not things that have any morality, or goodne&s;s by any Law of God: for if he meant this latter, he doth but trifle; for his meaning mu&s;t be, that things which are not determined by any command, and have neither good nor evil in
<PB N="54" REF="30">them, are left at liberty; which who doth not know? Neither can he &s;ay that it was otherwi&s;e in the <HI>Jewi&s;h</HI> Church as this his a&s;&s;ertion mu&s;t imply, if that be his meaning. If he mean the former (as certainly he doth) then, 1. it is an ill divi&s;ion of things that belong to the Church, in Morals and Circum&s;tantials: Be there not Chri&s;ts po&s;itive in&s;titutions which belong to neither of the&s;e kind? The Lord's Supper is no moral thing in this &s;ence; neither, I hope, is it a Circum&s;tantial thing that is left at liberty. 2. If he call all things Cir|cum&s;tantial which are not thus moral; and a&s;&s;ert them to be left at liberty; he doth at one blow cut of all the in&s;titutions of Chri&s;t, and will have the Go&s;pel-Church &s;o perfect as to be under no law of God, but the moral Law, and what Laws men plea&s;e to add unto it. This I hope he will retract when he con&s;idereth what he hath here a&s;&s;erted: For I perceive, that even learned men can &s;ay &s;ometimes they know not what.</P>
<P>&sect;. 7. His &s;econd rea&s;on, <HI>p.</HI> 180. is this, <HI>The Form of government among the</HI> Jews <HI>in the Tribe of</HI> Levy <HI>was agreea|ble to the form of Government among the other Tribes; and their Eccle&s;ia&s;tical Government was one of their Judicial Laws: Wherefore, if in this we compare Chri&s;t with</HI> Mo|&s;es <HI>we mu&s;t hold it needful that he pre&s;cribe al&s;o a form of Civil Government.</HI></P>
<P><HI>An&s;.</HI> 1. When we compare Chri&s;t with <HI>Mo&s;es,</HI> we have very good cau&s;e to make an exception where the Scrip|ture hath evidently made it. We compare them then as two Mediators, entru&s;ted with managing the affairs which concern mens Eternal Salvation; among which are Church Admini&s;trations: Hence there is Warrant for &s;tretching that compari&s;on made of them in Scrip|ture to their faithfulne&s;s in appointing Church Govern|ment; but as to Civil Government the Scripture mak|eth a plain exception, when it evidently holdeth forth
<PB N="55" REF="30"><HI>Mo&s;es</HI> a State Law-giver as, well as a Church Law-giver; and it doth as evidently te&s;tifie that Chri&s;t was not &s;uch; when he denieth his Kingdom to be of this World, <HI>Joh.</HI> 18.36. And that he is a Judge and divi|der of inheritance among men, <HI>Luk.</HI> 12.14. and his mean condition in the World (unlike to <HI>Mo&s;es</HI>) maketh this farther appear.</P>
<P>Wherefore there is no nece&s;&s;ity of comparing them in Civil, though we compare them in Church-Admini&s;trations. The Lord was plea&s;ed to make the Government of <HI>I&s;rael,</HI> in re&s;pect of Church and State both, to be <HI>Theocratia;</HI> to give them both kinds of Laws immediately from him&s;elf: That &s;eeing he hath under the Go&s;pel done otherwi&s;e, as to State-Govern|ment, he hath al&s;o done otherwi&s;e as to Church-Go|vernment; what a mad kind of con&s;equence is this? And there is evident rea&s;on of this differing Di&s;pen|&s;ation under the Law, and under the Go&s;pel. I &s;uppo&s;e if the difference of ca&s;es that ari&s;e from variety of Cir|cum&s;tances did permit; it were the happie&s;t ca&s;e for God's People to have all their actions and concern|ments particularly determined by the Lord, who is wi&s;er then men: now the Lord doth thus with them, &s;o far as it hinders not their happine&s;s, by a load of multiplicity of Laws: Wherefore, &s;eeing the Church and State of the Jews were commen&s;urable, being in one Nation, it was as ea&s;ie for them to have their State-Laws determined by the Lord as their Church-Laws: But it is far otherwi&s;e under the Go&s;pel, where the Church is &s;pread over &s;o many different Nations, of divers di&s;po&s;itions and manners; to have determined all things for the Civil Good of all the&s;e Nations, which mu&s;t be &s;uperadded. To the Determinations of Na|tures Law, would have made the Bible a burthen to men.</P>
<PB N="56" REF="31">
<P>But it is not &s;o in Eccle&s;ia&s;tical matters, there is nothing peculiar to the Church as a Church, or Reli|gious Society, but (&s;uppo&s;ing what Nature Dictates) may without burthening People with many Laws, be determined and impo&s;ed upon all.</P>
<P>Hence is it that the Lord &s;aw it for the good of the <HI>Jewi&s;h</HI> Church, to give them both Civil and Church-Laws, and for the good of the Go&s;pel 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 &s;eemeth &s;ometime to think) that it was <HI>any part of legal bondage to have Laws from God, even in the lea&s;t matters: and that which is Chri&s;tian liberty to be free from Gods Laws in the&s;e things, when we are bound to the &s;ame by the Laws of men:</HI> I &s;hould rather prefer their &s;tate to ours, thus far: but their bondage was, to have many things determined and impo&s;ed upon them which were na|turally indifferent, and &s;o free: which the Lord hath now left free under the Go&s;pel.</P>
<P><HI>An&s;w.</HI> 2. It is not to the purpo&s;e to tell us, that the <HI>Government of the Tribe of</HI> Levy <HI>was like that of the other Tribes:</HI> For Church-Government was very different from Civil Government for all that, <HI>viz.</HI> in this, that it was in the hand of the Tribe of <HI>Levy,</HI> and no other Tribe, which was a po&s;itive In&s;titution of God: that it did <HI>cogno&s;ce</HI> of other matters than Civil Government did; that it did inflict other cen&s;ures. But let it be never &s;o co-in|cident with Civil Government, yet it was of
<PB N="57" REF="31">Gods In&s;titution, which is all that is needful to our purpo&s;e. That <HI>the Form of Eccle&s;ia&s;tical Government took place among them, as one of their Judicial Laws,</HI> is a groundle&s;s A&s;&s;ertion: Yea, it is a begging of the Que&s;tion, and al&s;o taking away the Di&s;tinction of Church and State a|mong the Jews, which is not needful here to be in&s;i&s;ted upon, till &s;ome man An&s;wer what Mr. <HI>Gille&s;pie</HI> in his <HI>Aarons-rod</HI> hath written to this purpo&s;e.</P>
<P>&sect;. 8. His third Rea&s;on, <HI>ib.</HI> is, <HI>the People of the</HI> Jews <HI>were an entire People when their Church-Government was &s;etled: the Go&s;pel Church was but in Forming in Chri&s;ts and the A|po&s;tles times: they &s;ettled what was for the pre&s;ent need of the Church in her fir&s;t Con&s;titution, as in appointing Offi|cers; this will not &s;erve when the Church is grown, and &s;pread: her coat cut out for her Infancy mu&s;t not be urg'd on her when grown.</HI></P>
<P><HI>An&s;w.</HI> 1. This doth no way &s;atisfie the comparing of Chri&s;t's faithfulne&s;s with <HI>Mo&s;es;</HI> for <HI>Mo&s;es</HI> gave Laws in the Wilderne&s;s, not only for that wandring conditi|on, but for their &s;etled &s;tate in the Land of <HI>Canaan.</HI> Mu&s;t we then think that Chri&s;t took care that the Church in Infancy &s;hould have his Laws to be guided by, but afterward to be left to the Dictates of men? Sure our Lord was as careful to fore&s;ee future needs of his Peo|ple, as to provide for pre&s;ent wants.</P>
<P N="2">2. The Church in the Apo&s;tles days, though not &s;o far &s;pread as now, yet was &s;o multiplyed and &s;etled, as
<PB N="58" REF="32">that &s;he was capable to be ruled by Parity or Primacy: Might there not be a Bi&s;hop in <HI>Ephe&s;us, Corinth, &amp;c.</HI> and e&s;pecially in <HI>Galatia,</HI> a National Church? Might there not be a College of Presbyters then as well as now? Wherefore, if the Apo&s;tles provided for pre|&s;ent need, they behoved either to determine either of the&s;e two, <HI>ex are tuo.</HI></P>
<P N="3">3. What is there in our ca&s;e that maketh another kind of Government needful, then what was needful in the Apo&s;tles times? We have many Congregations which all need their &s;everal Officers, and mu&s;t be ru|led in common; either by all the&s;e Officers, or by &s;ome &s;et above the re&s;t: was not this their ca&s;e 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, &s;eeing the powers of the world profe&s;s Chri&s;t. It is true, there was a time when Government could not be fetled, <HI>viz.</HI> When fir&s;t a Church was plant|ed, and Believers very few: But I am &s;ure it was other|wi&s;e in many places before the Apo&s;tles departed this life.</P>
<P N="4">4. Mu&s;t we &s;ay then that the Directions in the Epi&s;tles to <HI>Tim.</HI> and <HI>Pet.</HI> and el&s;ewhere, concerning Church-Ad|mini&s;tration, do not concern us; but their force ex|pired with that time? I mu&s;t &s;ee &s;tronger Arguments than any that this Author hath brought, ere I be per|&s;waded of this: and yet it doth clearly follow, out of what he he &s;aith. Yea, we mu&s;t &s;ay that the&s;e Scri|ptures which tell us what Officers &s;hould be in the Church, as, <HI>Eph.</HI> 4.12. 1 <HI>Cor.</HI> 12.28. <HI>Rom.</HI> 12.6, 7, 8. do not reach us: but it is lawful for the Magi&s;trate (in this mans opinion) to appoint what Church-Officers he
<PB N="59" REF="32">thinketh fit for this time, as the Apo&s;tles did for their time. For he &s;aith, <HI>p.</HI> 181. the <HI>Apo&s;tles looked at the pre|&s;ent &s;tate of the Church, in appointing Officers.</HI> This I hope &s;ober men will not readily yield to: Yea, he is again&s;t him&s;elf, as we have &s;een before, and may have occa&s;ion further to &s;hew afterward.</P>
<P>&sect;. 9. His fourth and la&s;t Rea&s;on is, <HI>p.</HI> 181. the Jews lived under one civil Government, according to which the Church Government was framed and contempered: but Chri&s;tians live under different civil Governments; therefore if we compare Chri&s;t with <HI>Mo&s;es</HI> in this, we mu&s;t &s;ay that Chri&s;t did frame the Church Government according to the Civil; and &s;o it mu&s;t not be one but divers.</P>
<P><HI>An&s;.</HI> It is here boldly &s;uppo&s;ed, but not proved that the form of the Jewi&s;h Church Government, was framed according to the Civil, which we deny, and &s;o raze the foundation of this Rea&s;on. And whereas his a&s;&s;ertion wants proof; our denial &s;hall &s;tand on &s;urer ground: for the Civil Government among the Jews was often changed: they had Judges, Kings, Governors under their Conquerors: but we read not of changing their Church Government, which behoved to have been, had it been framed according to the Civil. Where|fore neither mu&s;t Chri&s;tian Church Government be formed by the Civil, but by Chri&s;ts In&s;titution.</P>
<P>&sect;. 10. To the&s;e an&s;wers to our Argument, he ad|deth, <HI>e<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="UOM" EXTENT="1 letter"> abundanti,</HI> as he &s;peaketh, &s;ome Arguments to prove the Antithe&s;is, <HI>viz.</HI> that Chri&s;t did never intend to in&s;titute any one Form of Government. He might
<PB N="60" REF="33">have &s;pared this his &s;upererrogation, except he had had more to &s;ay for taking off the &s;trength of our Argu|ment then we have met with. But to his Arguments, the fir&s;t <HI>p.</HI> 181 and 182. he frameth thus; what binds the Church as an In&s;titution of Chri&s;t, mu&s;t bind as a<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="UOM" EXTENT="1 letter"> Univer&s;al &s;tanding Law: one Form of Government cannot &s;o bind, <HI>ergo, prob. min.</HI> what binds as a Law mu&s;t either be expre&s;&s;ed as a Law in direct terms; or deduced by nece&s;&s;ary con&s;equence, as of an univer&s;al binding nature: The fir&s;t cannot be produced; The &s;e|cond is not &s;ufficient; except the con&s;equence be nece&s;|&s;ary, and al&s;o the obligation of what is drawn by con|&s;equence be expre&s;ly &s;et down in Scripture: for con&s;e|quences cannot make In&s;titution, but apply it to parti|cular ca&s;es: becau&s;e po&s;itives being indifferent, Divine In&s;titution mu&s;t be directly brought for their binding; &s;o that no con&s;equence can bind us to them, without ex|pre&s;s declaration that it &s;hall &s;o bind. This is no new Argument, it is propo&s;ed by him <HI>p.</HI> 12. and an&s;wered by us <HI>p.</HI> &mdash; to what is &s;aid there, I &s;hall add a little ap|plyed to his Argument, as here framed, his <HI>major</HI> is not &s;o evident but that it needeth a di&s;tinction to clear it. What bindeth as Chri&s;ts In&s;titution mu&s;t bind as an univer&s;al Law, <HI>i. e.</HI> in all times and places, <HI>negatur,</HI> for there are ca&s;es in which the Lord will admit, and ne|ce&s;&s;ity will impo&s;e a di&s;pen&s;ation with &s;ome of God's In|&s;titutions, as I exemplified before in the ca&s;e of <HI>Heze|kiah</HI> keeping the Pa&s;&s;eover; <HI>i. e.</HI> in all times where God or Nature doth not make a clear exception; or where the pre&s;ent ca&s;e doth not exempt it &s;elf from the intent of that, as being given in a far different conditi|on, <HI>conceditur.</HI> Hence there were &s;ome of Chri&s;ts Laws for the Church, temporal; &s;ome peculiar to &s;ome cafes: the&s;e do not bind us, all the re&s;t do, where they are po&s;&s;ibly practicable. That the Laws for parity of Offi|ces in the Church are of the latter &s;ort, we maintain.
<PB N="61" REF="33">For his <HI>Miner,</HI> we deny it, and for the disjunctive proof of it we are ready to maintain both the parts which he impugneth. And, Fir&s;t, That there is expre&s;s Law of Chri&s;t for parity: which I wonder he &s;hould &s;o barely deny: that it can be produced; when he knoweth or might know that it is brought by our Writers out of <HI>Mat.</HI> 20.25, 26. <HI>Lu.</HI> 22.25, 26. But what he hath to &s;ay again&s;t the evidence brought from the&s;e and other places, we &s;hall examine; when we come at them. 2. Though there were no expre&s;s Law for it, we main|tain that there is abundant evidence drawn by con&s;e|quence from Scripture to &s;hew that this is the Will and Law of Chri&s;t: as for the&s;e two conditions that he re|quireth in &s;uch a con&s;equence; the fir&s;t we own and maintain, that it is inferred by clear con&s;equence from Scripture that there ought to be a parity among Mini|&s;ters, thus; what was the practice of the Apo&s;tles in framing Church Government, &s;hould be ours al&s;o, ex|cept the ca&s;e be different; but the Apo&s;tles did &s;ettle the Mini&s;ters in equal power, without a Bi&s;hop over them: neither is there any difference in our ca&s;e that &s;hould cau&s;e us to do otherwi&s;e; <HI>ergo,</HI> we ought &s;o to practice. It is not needful to in&s;i&s;t here on the confir|mation of this Argument, &s;eeing we are here only a&s;&s;er|ting that this conclu&s;ion may be proved; not underta|king the proof of it: which is fully done by Presbyte|rian Writers, and which we are ready to defend again&s;t what this Author will object. For the &s;econd conditi|on, <HI>viz.</HI> that what is drawn by con&s;equence be expre&s;ly &s;et down in Scripture as binding: this is unlike Mr. <HI>Stillingfleet</HI>'s ability to require &s;uch a ridiculous conditi|on; for if it be expre&s;ly &s;et down in Scripture as bind|ing, then it is not a con&s;equence but an expre&s;s Law; and &s;o belongs to the former part of his disjunction. And be&s;ides, it is a hard task to put any one upon, to find out a con&s;equence &s;o deduced in Scripture:
<PB N="60" REF="34">What if <HI>Anabapti&s;t<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="UOM" EXTENT="1 letter">,</HI> who deny con&s;equences from Scrip|ture in the point of In&s;titution, &s;hould put Mr. <HI>Stilling|fleet</HI> to prove Infant Bapti&s;m by &s;uch a con&s;equence a<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="UOM" EXTENT="1 letter"> this: where &s;omething is &s;aid in Scripture, from which the duty of Baptizing Infants doth clearly follow; and where it is expre&s;ly &s;aid in Scripture, that it doth fol|low from this, that Infants mu&s;t be baptized; he would find this an hard task, and yet he requireth the &s;ame of us. What he &s;aith for the warranting of this &s;trange Doctrine, wanteth force. It is true Con&s;e|quences cannot make an In&s;titution, yet they may de|clare an In&s;titution: we may gather the Will of Chri&s;t in matters of In&s;titutions by Scripture con&s;equences as well as in points of Truth. And though Po&s;itives be indifferent, it is not needful that Divine In&s;titution be directly declared; for their binding; &s;eeing it is the Will of God revealed that bindeth us, not his Will re|vealed in &s;uch or &s;uch terms. He were a bad Servant that would do nothing of his Ma&s;ters Will, but what he declareth to him directly, and in the Imparative Mood: &s;uch Servants to God this Author would have us, that &s;o we may have the greater latitude to be the Servants of Men; taking their Will in&s;tead of Divine In&s;titution.</P>
<P>&sect;. 11. His &s;econd Argument, <HI>p.</HI> 182. is this; All the &s;tanding Laws for Church Government in Scripture may be applyed to &s;everal forms, <HI>ergo,</HI> there is no one Form pre&s;cribed. For proof of this, he reduceth all the Laws about Church Government to the&s;e three heads. 1. Such as &s;et down the qualification of Officers. 2. Such as require a right managing of their Office. 3. Such as lay down Rules for the managing their Office. On the&s;e he in&s;i&s;teth di&s;tinctly. Before I come to what
<PB N="61" REF="34">he &s;aith on the&s;e three Heads; let me an&s;wer general|ly to the Argument. And fir&s;t by &s;tanding Laws, I &s;up|po&s;e he meaneth &s;uch as are expre&s;ly &s;et down in the form of Laws: and then we deny his con&s;equence, for though the&s;e do only re&s;pect Government, in its more general con&s;ideration, yet that doth not hinder but the &s;pecies of it may be determined another way, <HI>viz.</HI> by Apo&s;tolick practices, or con&s;equences drawn from Scripture. 2. Though we &s;hould grant that all the Laws &s;et down in Scripture are equally applicable to either form, yet the one Form, <HI>viz.</HI> Parity may be de|termined in Scripture thus. Parity and Epi&s;copacy do agree in many things; &s;uppo&s;e then they agree in all that is commanded in Scripture; and that Epi&s;copacy be &s;o far warrantable: no wonder that they be not di&s;crimi|nated by the&s;e Laws; but then here comes the diffe|rences; Parity requireth no more for its e&s;tabli&s;hment, but the&s;e Scripture Laws: and &s;o it holdeth it &s;elf with|in the bounds of Divine In&s;titution; but Epi&s;copacy goeth beyond this boundary, by &s;etting up a new Offi|cer in the Church which the Scripture knoweth not; and &s;o one Form is determined, though not by any Law condemning the other expre&s;ly; yet by the Laws that warrant it; and the want of any Law to warrant the other. 3. We deny that all the Scripture Laws redu|cible to the&s;e three Heads, do relate to either Form, in that wherein they differ. But let us hear his proofs. He beginneth with the fir&s;t Head, <HI>p.</HI> 183. where, I con|fe&s;s, that all the qualifications of Per&s;ons which he men|tioneth may be applied to either Bi&s;hop or Presbyter. But then, 1. This is an Argument that Bi&s;hop and Pre&s;|byter are one, or rather that there is no &s;uch di&s;tinction by the Will of Chri&s;t; for &s;ure there are di&s;tinct qua|lifications required, the one being to Rule, the other to Obey: wherefore if the Apo&s;tles had thought there
<PB N="64" REF="35">might be both Bi&s;hops and Presbyters in the Church; &s;urely he would have &s;et down the qualities of a Bi|&s;hop as he is di&s;tingui&s;hed from a Presbyter, as well as he &s;etteth down the qualities of a Presbyter. <HI>Confirma|tur,</HI> a man may be a well qualified Presbyter acting un|der a Bi&s;hop, and yet not qualified to be a Bi&s;hop: wherefore if the Apo&s;tle had thought it lawful to &s;et the one over the other, his qualifications of Church Offi|cers are very lame, &s;eeing he doth not &s;hew us who a|mong the Presbyters is fitte&s;t to be made my Lord Bi|&s;hop; as well as he &s;heweth who among the People are fit to be Presbyters. 2. The Laws concerning qua|lifications do require in all Presbyters an ability to rule the Church, and do &s;uppo&s;e them to be rulers of the Church; as is clear, 1 <HI>Tim.</HI> 3.4, 5. this is not appli|cable to Epi&s;copacy, for in Epi&s;copacy it is not needful that Presbyters be able to rule, &s;eeing they have no ex|erci&s;e of that Faculty: as God createth nothing in vain, &s;o he doth not require any qualifications of men in vain. Is it imaginable that if a man be well qualified to Preach, <HI>&amp;c.</HI> and yet unfit to rule; that the Lord will have that man kept out of the Mini&s;try for that want of a ruling ability, &s;eeing he &s;hould have no u&s;e of that faculty if he had it? <HI>Ergo,</HI> the&s;e qualifications are not applicable to Epi&s;copacy, where the Bi&s;hop alone ruleth. If it be &s;aid, that this maketh the &s;ole Juri&s;diction of Bi&s;hops unlawful, not their being Rulers together with the Presbyters; <HI>An&s;.</HI> If Bi&s;hops be &s;et over Presby|ters, they mu&s;t either be only <HI>Prae&s;ides,</HI> which is not contrary to Parity (for we &s;peak of Parity or Impari|ty of Juri&s;diction) or they mu&s;t have Authority above and over their Brethren; and if &s;o they may rule with|out their Brethren; &s;eeing they may command them and make that power void which Chri&s;t hath given his Ser|vants; and &s;o the force of what I have &s;aid doth
<PB N="65" REF="35">return. Again, if Presbyters under a Bi&s;hop have Ru|ling Power, either they may determine without, or a|gain&s;t his con&s;ent, or not; if &s;o, the Bi&s;hop is but a Pre|&s;ident; if not, the Presbyters are but Cyphers, &s;eeing the Bi&s;hop may do in the Church what he plea&s;eth.</P>
<P><HI>Sect.</HI> 12. He cometh <HI>p.</HI> 184. to the Laws concerning a right managing of their work, which I do not deny to be applicable to either form; and no wonder, for faithful|ne&s;s is a commanded duty in what ever &s;tation God put|teth a man: But our Author taketh occa&s;ion here to in|fer the indifferency of either form. 1. Becau&s;e <HI>Paul</HI> did not determine in his Epi&s;tles to <HI>Tim.</HI> and <HI>Tit.</HI> (which chiefly concern Church-Government) whether any &s;hould &s;ucceed to <HI>Timothy</HI> and <HI>Tit.</HI> in <HI>Ephe&s;us</HI> and <HI>Creet. An&s;.</HI> It is a bad con&s;equence, for the thing did determine it &s;elf, for they were Extraordinary Officers, immediately called by God, being Evangeli&s;ts; therefore they were to have no Succe&s;&s;ors, unle&s;s the Lord did &s;o call them. Further, they were not fixed in the&s;e places, but for a time: they did not live and die there; which &s;hewed that there was no need of Succe&s;&s;ors to them in that Of|fice. Again he argueth, that the Apo&s;tle did not deter|mine how the Pa&s;tors of &s;everal Churches &s;hould order things of common concernment; which, con&s;idered with the former, would &s;eem a &s;trange omi&s;&s;ion, were either of the&s;e forms nece&s;&s;ary. <HI>An&s;.</HI> This is no &s;trange omi&s;|&s;ion, nor &s;hould it &s;o be e&s;teemed by this Author, who maketh all that is requi&s;ite for the right managing of affairs by the Pa&s;tors of &s;everal Churches, to be of the Law of Nature, <HI>viz.</HI> that they &s;hould meet, that one &s;hould moderate, that there &s;hould be Appeals, <HI>&amp;c.</HI> as I ob&s;erved out of him before. 2. We deny that it is omit|ted: yea, this Author in &s;aying otherwi&s;e, contradicteth him&s;elf; for he will not deny, but there are directions in the&s;e Epi&s;tles for Church-Government; and he af|firmeth, that they are applicable to either form, <HI>Ergo,</HI> to Pa&s;tors acting in Parity; neither was it needful that there
<PB N="66" REF="36">&s;hould be directions to them, which are not applicable to Bi&s;hops governing, becau&s;e the managing of the work is the &s;ame in both ways, except what Nature maketh nece&s;&s;ary to a Society, or a &s;ingle per&s;on governing, which al&s;o it doth teach. 3. The matter is determined even in the&s;e Epi&s;tles, <HI>viz.</HI> 1 <HI>Tim.</HI> 4.14. where it is not ob&s;curely held forth, that <HI>Tim.</HI> was ordained by a Pres|bytery; which inferreth, that Presbyters ought &s;o to be ordained, and not by a Bi&s;hop alone. 4. Though the matter were not determined in the&s;e Epi&s;tles, it is no wonder, they being written to particular men, but it is determined in other Scriptures, <HI>viz.</HI> where Chri&s;t giveth the Keys, not to one, but to all the Apo&s;tles then, the on|ly Church Officers; and where <HI>Paul</HI> committeth the care of the Church of <HI>Ephe&s;us,</HI> not to one Bi&s;hop, but to the Elders in common, <HI>Act.</HI> 20.28. Of this he &s;aith, <HI>p.</HI> 184. it is equally a duty, whether we under&s;tand by Over&s;eers &s;ome acting over others, or all joyning in e|quality. But by his leave, when the Apo&s;tle giveth this charge peremptorily to all the Elders of <HI>Ephe&s;us</HI> (for to them he &s;peaketh, not to the&s;e of other Churches of <HI>A|&s;ia,</HI> as he dreameth the Text may be under&s;tood, upon what ground I know not) there is no doubt left, whe|ther he maketh it the duty of them all in common, or of &s;ome one &s;et over the re&s;t: And may we not think that this Command is a &s;tanding Rule, reaching even to us, as he him&s;elf &s;aith, (<HI>p.</HI> 185.) of what is contained in the Epi&s;tles to <HI>Tim.</HI> and <HI>Tit.?</HI> and if &s;o, then all Pa|&s;tors are Bi&s;hops or Over&s;eers, not one over the re&s;t by Apo&s;tolick Authority. He argueth thus, <HI>p.</HI> 185. <HI>Tim.</HI> is charged to commit the things he had heard of <HI>Paul</HI> to faithful men, who might be able al&s;o to teach others, 2 <HI>Tim.</HI> 2.2. Had it not been as requi&s;ite to have charged him to have committed his power of Government to them, <HI>&amp;c.? An&s;.</HI> 1. Yea, he doth here commit power of Preaching, and of governing, joyntly to <HI>Timothy,</HI> to be transferred by him to others; for of both the&s;e, I &s;up|po&s;e,
<PB N="67" REF="36"><HI>Tim.</HI> had heard from <HI>Paul:</HI> why then mu&s;t we here under&s;tand the one, rather then the other? in that he mentioneth Teaching, not Ruling, it is becau&s;e Teaching is the main bu&s;ine&s;s, and hath the other power nece&s;&s;arily joined with it, by divine In&s;titution. 2. It is not always needful to mention Governing Power, where ever the power of a Mini&s;ter is mentioned, and here, it cannot be deemed needful, becau&s;e the Apo&s;tle had for|merly in&s;tructed <HI>Tim.</HI> that he choo&s;e none to be Pa|&s;tors, but they who are able to Rule too, whence it fol|loweth, that when he biddeth him commit to them the Pa&s;toral charge, he intendeth Ruling Power as a part of it; el&s;e to what purpo&s;e &s;hould he require ability to Rule in them? To the &s;ame purpo&s;e is what he &s;aith of <HI>Tit.</HI> <Q>That he bid him ordain Elders, but told not what Power did belong to them; a Negative Argument from one place of Scripture,</Q> is in conclu|dent, &s;uch as this is: From the Superiority of <HI>Tim.</HI> and <HI>Tit.</HI> <Q>(I pa&s;s his clearing of it, from being an Ar|gument for Epi&s;copacy) be inferreth two things, <HI>p.</HI> 186.187. Fir&s;t that the Superiority of &s;ome Church Officers (he &s;hould have &s;aid Presbyters, for of Officers it is not Que&s;tioned on either hand) over others, is not contrary to the Rule of the Go&s;pel. 2. That it is not repugnant to the Con&s;titution of the Church in Apo&s;tolical times for men to have power over more then one particular Congregation. The&s;e &s;aith he follow, though their Of|fice be &s;uppo&s;ed extroardinary; and that they acted as Evangeli&s;ts.</Q> <HI>An&s;.</HI> It will follow indeed from the&s;e exam|ples, that Superiority is not contrary to Nature, nor to the Nature of a Go&s;pel Church: Al&s;o it will follow, that it is not contrary to Go&s;pel In&s;titution, that the Lord &s;hould immediately, when he &s;eeth cau&s;e, appoint &s;uch Superiority; and what if we &s;ay it followeth, that it is not contrary to Go&s;pel In&s;titution, that in &s;ome ex|traordinary ca&s;es, that Superiority may be allowed for a time. But none of the&s;e are the thing in Que&s;tion:
<PB N="68" REF="37">for this doth not follow, that becau&s;e the Lord did im|mediately call the&s;e men, and gave them Extroardinary Power over others; therefore he hath not in&s;tituted, that the ordinary way of Church Government &s;hall be by Pa&s;tors acting in Purity, which is here di&s;puted. His third head of Laws, formerly mentioned, he touch|eth, <HI>p.</HI> 188. and bringeth in&s;tances of &s;ome General rules for Church Government, which I confe&s;s are not peculiar to one form: But this doth not hinder that there may be other Rules which are &s;uch; which him|&s;elf in&s;tanceth; as, that complaints be made to the Church: it is an odd expo&s;ition to &s;ay, <HI>i. e.</HI> Tell the Bi&s;hop. The Church implieth clearly a Plurality. <HI>p.</HI> 187. <Q>had it been the will of Chri&s;t, &s;aith he, that there &s;hould be no Superiority of Pa&s;tors,</Q> there would have been &s;ome expre&s;s and direct prohibition of it. <HI>An&s;.</HI> 1. Might not a prohibition by Con&s;equence &s;erve turn? This is very peremptorily &s;poken. 2. What needeth any prohibition, when Chri&s;t had in&s;tituted a way in|con&s;i&s;tent with it; this was a prohibition of it: now this he did by giving Ruling power to all Presbyters, as hath been already &s;hewed.</P>
<P><HI>Sect.</HI> 13. He bringeth another Argument of his Op|po&s;ites, <HI>p.</HI> 189. <HI>Viz.</HI> <Q>That it is of equal nece&s;&s;ity, that Chri&s;t &s;hould In&s;titute a certain Form, as that any other Legi&s;lator that moderates a Commonwealth &s;hould do. His fir&s;t. <HI>An&s;.</HI> To this is, that Chri&s;t hath in&s;tituted &s;uch an immutable Government in his Church as is &s;uf|cient for the &s;ucce&s;&s;ion and continuance of it; which is all that founders of Republicks looked after, <HI>viz.</HI> That there be &s;uch an order and di&s;tinction of Per|&s;ons, and &s;ubordination, that a Society may be pre|&s;erved among them. Till then it be proved that one form is nece&s;&s;ary for the being of a Church, this Argu|ment can prove nothing.</Q> Reply, it is fal&s;e, that Le|gi&s;lators looked after no more but that, we find none of them, who &s;etled not a particular Form: ye<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="UOM" EXTENT="1 letter"> this
<PB N="69" REF="37">was nece&s;&s;ary; for the&s;e Generals could not be practi&s;ed, but in &s;ome particular Form, this or that: and of the&s;e we find they choo&s;ed what they thought fitte&s;t: even &s;o Chri&s;t not only appointed Generals, but knowing a particular Form is only practicable, he cho&s;e that which he thought fitte&s;t; mans choi&s;e in this is alterable, be|cau&s;e other men may have as much wi&s;dom and autho|rity as they; Chri&s;ts choi&s;e is not &s;o, for the contrary rea&s;ons. His &s;econd <HI>An&s;. p.</HI> 190. <Q>Is, what is not ab|&s;olutely nece&s;&s;ary to the being of a Church, is in Chri&s;ts liberty, whether he will determine it or not: even as when I hear, that <HI>Lycurgus</HI> and others did form a Republick; I conclude there mu&s;t be Government: But not that they In&s;titute Monarchy, <HI>&amp;c.</HI> this mu&s;t be known by taking a view of their Laws.</Q> Reply, we acknowledge that Form of Government to be in Chri&s;ts liberty whether he will determine it, or not; but we think it like, that he hath determined it: as for other rea&s;ons, &s;o becau&s;e even men have not appointed the Generals of Government, without a form in which they &s;hould &s;ub&s;i&s;t: much le&s;s would the wi&s;e God do &s;o; if they being wi&s;er then others, did think it fitter to choo&s;e the Form then to leave it at other mens will, much more would he. What he &s;aith, of inferring, that they did appoint this or that Form, from their modelling a Common Wealth; is not to the purpo&s;e: for that they did appoint a Form we know by Hi&s;tory; and, I &s;uppo&s;e, that every one thinketh that they did wi&s;ely in &s;o doing; and that their doing &s;o was for the good of the Republick: hence we infer that it is like Chri&s;t did &s;o, &s;eeing he &s;ought his peoples good more then they; and the Church is le&s;s able to choo&s;e for her &s;elf, then tho&s;e Republicks were; &s;eeing Church Matters are of &s;piritual concernment, and &s;o 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 Chri&s;t hath in&s;tituted, but by looking into his Laws;
<PB N="70" REF="38">yea, and but that way, we could not certainly know that he hath determined any one form; yet this doth not hinder, but &s;uch Arguments as this may have their own weight. The Te&s;timony he bringeth out of Mr. <HI>Hooker,</HI> is an&s;wered from what hath been &s;aid, and I am to meet with it el&s;ewhere: He mi&s;taketh our in|tent in &s;uch Arguments, and fal&s;ly &s;uppo&s;eth that the form we plead for is not found in the Bible.</P>
<P><HI>Sect.</HI> 14. He bringeth another argument, <HI>p.</HI> 191. from the &s;imilitude of a Vine which mu&s;t have its Dre&s;&s;ers; and a Hou&s;e, and a City, which mu&s;t have Government: it was very ea&s;ie for him to an&s;wer the Argument thus propounded; I know not who ever did &s;o manage it: But it might have been thus impro|ved, a wi&s;e Ma&s;ter of a Vineyard will not let his &s;er|vants do what they plea&s;e, but will appoint them his work in his Vineyard; and a Ma&s;ter of a Family, or a King in a Country or City, will not let the Servants or Subjects chu&s;e in what they &s;hall be governed; <HI>Er|go;</HI> if the Church be a Vine, a Hou&s;e, a City, and Chri&s;t be the Head and Ruler of it, it is not like that he hath left the choi&s;e of the way of governing it to men, but hath appointed it him&s;elf: If he had thus propound|ed the Argument, it had not been &s;o ea&s;ily an&s;wered. The &s;ame way he u&s;eth the next Argument, <HI>p.</HI> 192. taken from the difference of Civil and Eccle&s;ia&s;tical Government; the one of which is called the Ordi|nance of man, and the other is Gods Ordinance; therefere though that be mutable, this is not. I chu&s;e rather to frame the Argument otherwi&s;e, out of his own Conce&s;&s;ion he maketh difference between the&s;e two Governments, the one is for a Political, the other for a &s;piritual end; the one for a temporal, the other for an eternal end; the one given to men as men, the other to men as Chri&s;tians; the one to pre&s;erve Civil Right, the other to pre&s;erve an Eternal Intere&s;t, <HI>&amp;c.</HI> Then, however the Lord let men chu&s;e the way of at|taining
<PB N="71" REF="38">political and temporal ends, and provide for their own &s;tanding as men, and pre&s;erve their Civil Rights; yet it is &s;trange to think, that he hath left it to mens choi&s;e to take this or that way for attaining their &s;piritual and eternal end, for procuring their &s;tanding as Chri&s;tians, for pre&s;erving their &s;piritual rights; though the one be the Ordinance of man, &s;ure the other mu&s;t be the Ordinance of God: But the form of Church-Government is the way to attain the&s;e, becau&s;e Church-Government is the mean, as is confe&s;&s;ed, and it cannot be acted but in a particular form, and the form is the way of managing that mean, and &s;o attaining the end; yea, it is &s;uch a way as hath exceeding influence upon attaining the&s;e ends, &s;eeing a wrong form may more hinder than promote them; man, I &s;uppo&s;e, may chu&s;e a way that may do more hurt than good; it is &s;trange then if Chri&s;t hath left this which is of &s;uch high concernment, to &s;uch high ends, to the will of corrupt men: and this Ar|gument may have the more weight <HI>ad hominem,</HI> be|cau&s;e this Author is often endeavouring to &s;hape Church-Government according to the Civil, which is very un&s;uitable to what he a&s;&s;erteth of their differences.</P>
<P><HI>Sect.</HI> 15. Another argument <HI>p.</HI> 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 Chri&s;t never made. To this he an&s;wereth: 1. The&s;e Officers are only &s;aid to be new which were never appointed by Chri&s;t, and are contrary to the fir&s;t appointment of Chri&s;t, but one &s;et over many Pa&s;tors is not &s;uch; for be&s;ides the gene|ral practice from the fir&s;t Primitive times, Chri&s;t him&s;elf laid the foundation of &s;uch an Office, in ap|pointing Apo&s;tles. <HI>Reply.</HI> Here are many things hud|led together, to excu&s;e Epi&s;copacy from Novelty, which we mu&s;t examine &s;everally. 1. They are not a new Office, would he &s;ay, becau&s;e Chri&s;t in&s;tituted &s;uch
<PB N="72" REF="39">an Office, <HI>viz.</HI> Apo&s;tles. <HI>Reply.</HI> I hope he will not &s;ay, that the Office of an Apo&s;tle, and of a <HI>Dioce&s;an</HI> Bi|&s;hop, is the &s;ame Office; for the Apo&s;tles had much power, which Bi&s;hops have not, and were Extraordi|nary Officers, immediately called by God, &s;o are not Bi&s;hops: and however there may be &s;ome re&s;emblance between them, yet if they be not the &s;ame Office, it mu&s;t be a new Office from what Chri&s;t appointed: It is not the want of Similitude, but the want of I|dentity, with what hath been before, that maketh a thing new; neither need we enter the di&s;pute with him, what way extraordinary, and what not, in the Apo&s;tolick Office, nor doth the Que&s;tion lie in that, as he alledgeth; for we maintain (and I think it will not be deni'd by him) that the Office in <HI>complexe, viz.</HI> as it did &s;ub&s;i&s;t in <HI>rerum natura,</HI> was extraordinary, and is cea&s;ed; and therefore whatever Office is made up of &s;ome part of the power they had, without the re&s;t of it, mu&s;t be a different Office from that, and &s;o new. Indeed if Chri&s;t had given them their power by halves, and made the one half of it common to &s;ome Officer appointed by him to continue in the Church, <HI>viz.</HI> power over Presbyters, and the other half of it peculiar to them, then Bi&s;hops having power over Presbyters, though they had been a new Office from the Apo&s;tles, and not the &s;ame, yet &s;hould they have had the &s;ame Office with the&s;e others that we &s;uppo|&s;ed, and &s;o had not been new &s;imply; but there being no &s;uch thing, they mu&s;t be in another Office than Chri&s;t ever appointed, and &s;o &s;imply new. Wherefore it is an unrea&s;onable demand of the Author, <HI>p.</HI> 195. that we mu&s;t prove power over Presbyters to be ex|traordinary, before we &s;ay it mu&s;t cea&s;e: For it is enough that the whole Office be extraordinary, that it be not a patern for any other Office that &s;hould be the &s;ame: Yea, we can ea&s;ily prove that that pow|er, as in the Apo&s;tles, and making up the Complex
<PB N="73" REF="39">of their Office, was extraordinary, becau&s;e it cannot rurvive the Office it &s;elf under that notion; and we can al&s;o prove, that Chri&s;t never in&s;tituted any &s;uch power by it &s;elf, and without the other parts of the Apo&s;tolick Office: whence it clearly followeth, that &s;uch a power by it &s;elf (which is a clear de&s;cription of the Epi&s;copal Office) is divers from all the Offices iu&s;tituted by Chri&s;t, and &s;o is a new Office: What he &s;aith of the cea&s;ing of this power with the Apo&s;tles, as to its nece&s;&s;ity, but not as to its lawfulne&s;s, is mo&s;t impertinent, and a begging of the Que&s;tion; for the conclu&s;ion of the Argument is, that it is unlawful, be|cau&s;e it hath no in&s;titution, that in&s;titution which it had in the Apo&s;tles being cea&s;ed. His confirmation of this his di&s;tinction containeth a manife&s;t fal&s;hood, <HI>viz.</HI> to make a thing unlawful, &s;aith he, which was before lawful, there mu&s;t be an expre&s;s prohibition forbid|ding the u&s;e of &s;uch a thing: This, I &s;ay, applied to the matter in hand, is mo&s;t fal&s;e, for we &s;peak of things which have their lawfulne&s;s only from in&s;titu|tion, <HI>viz.</HI> Authority given to one over others: now that which is thus lawful, becometh unlawful, meerly by the withdrawing of the In&s;titution, though no ex|pre&s;s prohibition of it be made. As is evident from the like ca&s;e among men, when a King giveth a Com|mi&s;&s;ion to a Judge, it is lawful for him to act in that capacity: now if the King &s;hall call in his Commi&s;|&s;ion, though there be no expre&s;s forbidding of the man, I &s;uppo&s;e it is now become unlawful for him to act. Ju&s;t &s;o is our ca&s;e; one Pa&s;tor can have no au|thority over another, unle&s;s it be given him by Chri&s;t, who a&s;cended up on high, and received the&s;e gifts for men, <HI>Eph.</HI> 4. Now Chri&s;t had given once &s;uch a pow|er to men, <HI>viz.</HI> the Apo&s;tles, this he hath now with|drawn, by not giving &s;uch Commi&s;&s;ion to any others, but the Apo&s;tles; for I &s;uppo&s;e (to follow the former example) that when a Judge which had a Commi&s;&s;ion
<PB N="74" REF="40">dieth, it is a &s;ufficient withdrawing of his Commi&s;&s;i|on, that the King doth not give it to any other who may &s;ucceed him: wherefore any who take that pow|er to them, do it without Commi&s;&s;ion from Chri&s;t which is unlawful.</P>
<P><HI>Sect.</HI> 16. Another An&s;wer he bringeth to this ar|gument, <HI>p.</HI> 195. on which he in&s;i&s;teth much, as a foun|dation tonding to e&s;tabli&s;h his whole Cau&s;e, but I hope it &s;hall prove a ruinous foundation. The An&s;wer is this; <Q>The extending of any Mini&s;terial power, is not the appointing of any new, but a determining the extent of that in <HI>actu &s;ecun<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="UOM" EXTENT="1 letter">o,</HI> which every Mini|&s;ter hath in <HI>actu primo.</HI> For clearing this, he under|taketh two things. 1. To &s;hew that the power of e|very Mini&s;ter doth primarily and habitually re|&s;pect the Church in common, which I do freely yield to him. 2. P. 197. That the Officers of the Church may in a peculiar manner attribute a larger and more exten&s;ive power to &s;ome particular per&s;ons, for the more convenient exerci&s;e of their common power.</Q> Before I come to examine what he &s;aith to this purpo&s;e, let me note: 1. That he &s;peak|eth here in a new &s;train, before he had at tributed this power of determining to the Magi&s;trate, now the Of|ficers of the Church mu&s;t have it, which I confe&s;s is more fit: But he &s;oon repenteth, and in the end of the &s;ame page maketh it lye between the Pa&s;tors and Magi&s;trate, whether he plea&s;e. It is &s;trange to &s;ee how tho&s;e who loo&s;e hold of the truth, hang as Me|teors and know not where to fix. I take notice; 2. That whereas the former part of his undertaking (which he knew to be out of controver&s;ie among them again&s;t whom he di&s;puteth) he e&s;tabli&s;heth by five &s;trong Arguments; but for that part where the &s;tre&s;s of the matter lieth, he hath not brought &s;o much as one rea&s;on to evince what he &s;aith, but &s;ome few bare A&s;&s;ertions for the clearing of it; and indeed it
<PB N="75" REF="40">is &s;ometimes ea&s;ier to prove the thing that is not, than the thing that is denied, even to &s;uch able men as Mr. <HI>Stillingfl.</HI> But let us now attend to what he &s;aith for his Opinion: <HI>We have &s;een,</HI> &s;aith he, <HI>that their power extendeth to the care of the Churches in common; that the re&s;traint of this power is a matter of or|der and decency in the Church.</HI> Here are two things, the former of which we have heard, and &s;een &s;olidly pro|ved; but the latter I have not yet &s;een, where he hath done any thing but a&s;&s;erted it, as he here doth: but &s;ure, it being a matter of &s;uch concernment and con|trover&s;ie, needed &s;ome more proof; wherefore I can|not pa&s;s it &s;o &s;lightly as he hath done. We may di|&s;tingui&s;h a twofold re&s;training (the &s;ame holdeth in enlarging) of the exerci&s;e of the power of Church-Officers, <HI>viz.</HI> in re&s;pect of the Object of it, and in re&s;pect of the acts of it. Re&s;traint, in re&s;pect of the object of this power, may be &s;ubdivided: Fir&s;t, when that power is permitted or appointed to be exerci&s;ed over more or fewer objects of the &s;ame kind, which it doth re&s;pect by the appointment of Chri&s;t; as that a Mini&s;ter &s;hould have a narrower or larger bounds for his Pari&s;h, or more or fewer people to watch over; and &s;o of the limiting of Presbyteries, Synods, <HI>&amp;c.</HI> This re&s;traint, or enlargement of power in its exer|ci&s;e, we acknowledge to be a matter of order and de|cency, and may be determined by the prudence of the Church. Secondly, when it is extended to the objects of another kind, or re&s;tricted from the whole Species of the&s;e objects that Chri&s;t hath appointed it for; as when a Bi&s;hop by him&s;elf, who by Chri&s;ts In&s;titution hath only power over the people, getteth power, given him by man, over his fellow Pa&s;tors; and when a Presbyter, who by Chri&s;ts In&s;titution hath a power over the Flock to rule them, is hindred from the ex|erci&s;e of this power altogether, and is &s;et only to feed, and this ruling power, as to its exerci&s;e, is whol|ly
<PB N="76" REF="41">devolved upon another: This we deny to be a mat|ter of order and decency committed to the Churches prudence. Re&s;traint and enlargement, in re&s;pect of acts of power, is when &s;ome acts which may be by Chri&s;ts In&s;titution exerci&s;ed by all Presbyters, are on|ly permitted to be exerci&s;ed by &s;ome, and not by o|thers; as Ordination, Church-cen&s;ures: and when &s;ome are authorized to do &s;ome acts of power that Chri&s;ts In&s;titution giveth them no Commi&s;&s;ion unto; this, together with that re&s;traint mentioned in the &s;econd member of the &s;ubdivi&s;ion, we prove, not to be matters of order, left to the prudence of the Church, but to be the &s;etting up of a new Office in the Church. 1. Order that the Church is commanded to look after, requireth the right circum&s;tantiating of the&s;e acts which Chri&s;t hath appointed to be done in his Church; as that they be done in fit time, place, method, <HI>&amp;c.</HI> neither can this ordering of things reach beyond the determination of circum&s;tances, for what|ever is more than this, is not an ordering of that a|ction unto which the circum&s;tances do belong, but an in&s;tituting of a new action; becau&s;e (for example) the right order of reading doth not require prayer, or &s;inging to be joyned with it, but re&s;pecteth only the circum&s;tances of reading it &s;elf: now, &s;uch re&s;training or enlarging of the exerci&s;e of power, is no right circum&s;tantiating of it, but &s;ome other thing; it be|ing no circum&s;tance of the exerci&s;e of Pa&s;toral pow|er, whether he &s;hall rule or not, but an e&s;&s;ential part (I mean as to the integrality, it being an integral part) of that power which Chri&s;t hath given him, as is confe&s;&s;ed: al&s;o, giving the exerci&s;e of that power to one which belongeth to many, is not adding of a circum&s;tance, but a &s;upernumerary part of power (as to its exerci&s;e) above the&s;e parts that Chri&s;t hath gi|ven them; <HI>ergo,</HI> this is no ordering of the exerci&s;e of power, but &s;etting up of it anew. 2. Order that be|longeth
<PB N="77" REF="41">to the prudence of the Church, is that unto which confu&s;ion is oppo&s;ite; then is that order ob|tained, when all confu&s;ion is avoided; but confu&s;ion may be avoided, without this re&s;training and enlar|ging of Church-power by men, el&s;e it were in no ca&s;e lawful to let power be exerci&s;ed as it is in&s;tituted by Chri&s;t, becau&s;e we mu&s;t always be careful to avoid confu&s;ion; <HI>ergo,</HI> I confe&s;s re&s;training of the exerci&s;e of power, as to objects of the &s;ame kind, as fixing of Pa|ri&s;hes, is nece&s;&s;ary to avoid confu&s;ion: but this can|not be &s;aid of taking power of ruling out of the hands of Presbyters, and giving it to Bi&s;hops; el&s;e we mu&s;t &s;ay that Epi&s;copacy is nece&s;&s;ary, which de&s;troyeth this mans Hypothe&s;is. If it be &s;aid that &s;ometimes it falleth out that this is nece&s;&s;ary to avoid confu&s;ion, and then Epi&s;copacy is nece&s;&s;ary. <HI>An&s;.</HI> If we &s;hould grant that it is &s;ometimes u&s;eful to avoid confu&s;ion, as that which may be the fruit of Parity, yet it can|not be &s;aid that Parity it &s;elf is confu&s;ion: now, it is not in the Churches power to take her own way, to avoid whatever may have a bad effect (for the be&s;t things may be &s;uch) but &s;he mu&s;t &s;hun that which is evil by a right managing, not by laying a&s;ide that which is good: wherefore &s;eeing Order is con&s;i&s;tent with Parity, and Parity with the In&s;titution of Chri&s;t, and Imparity goeth at lea&s;t a &s;tep beyond the In&s;titu|tion, and taketh that from men which Chri&s;t gave them, and giveth it to &s;ome to whom he gave it not, this cannot be a right ordering of his In&s;titution, but rather &s;etting up &s;ome other thing in the place there|of. 3. The right ordering of the exerci&s;e of that power which Chri&s;t hath given to men, mu&s;t con&s;i&s;t in determining of the&s;e things which he hath not deter|mined, and yet are nece&s;&s;ary to be determined, as time, place, extent of Pari&s;hes, <HI>&amp;c.</HI> for if men either take upon them to determine in the&s;e matters, which he hath already determined by his In&s;titution, or to
<PB N="78" REF="42">determine things that he hath left at liberty, becau&s;e the determination was not needful to his de&s;ign, they then, would be wi&s;er then he, and do not order his In&s;titutions, but &s;et up their own. Now this which our Author calleth Ordering is guilty of both the&s;e, for Chri&s;t by giving Ruling Power to all Presbyters hath declared his Will that they &s;hall all Rule, and e|&s;pecially by requiring an ability for this, as a nece&s;&s;ary qualification of them, who &s;hould be put unto that Office: do not men then, by appointing who &s;hould Rule, pa&s;s their determination on what he hath already determined, and that contrary to what he hath appoint|ed. Again, Chri&s;t hath not appointed any Superiority and Inferiority among Presbyters; neither is it needful this be, the Church may be without it, and yet men take upon them to appoint it. Is this then to or|der that Government that Chri&s;t hath appointed, and not rather to &s;et up new Officers that men have de|vi&s;ed.</P>
<P><HI>Sect.</HI> 17. Next he &s;ubjoyneth a &s;trange a&s;&s;ertion. <Q>Now, &s;aith he, in matters of common concernment, without all que&s;tion, it is not unlawful, when the Church judgeth it mo&s;t fit for edification, to grant to &s;ome the executive part of that power, which is origi|nally and fundamentally common to them all.</Q> <HI>An&s;w.</HI> If it be &s;o, all this pains that our Author is at, is need|le&s;s, and his Book to no purpo&s;e: For I mi&s;take much, if the main bu&s;ine&s;s in it be not to prove the lawful|ne&s;s of this, which here he a&s;&s;erteth to be unque&s;tio|nably lawful. For he confe&s;&s;eth that ruling power is given by Chri&s;t to all Presbyters: then, we mu&s;t either &s;ay that it is his in&s;titution that they all exerci&s;e it and &s;o parity is his in&s;titution: or, that the executive part of it may be given to &s;ome, or may be common to them all; and &s;o the form of Government may be left indifferent is the &s;cope of this Book. Now if it be un|que&s;tionable, what needeth all this pains about it.
<PB N="79" REF="42">But I conceive, this confident a&s;&s;ertion is put in&s;tead of the Arguments, whereby this undertaking of his &s;hould have been confirmed: It is an ea&s;ie thing, when one cannot find proofs for their opinion to &s;ay, it is out of Que&s;tion, but it is an unhand&s;ome way of di&s;puting, e&s;pecially unbe&s;eeming the per&s;on, who could not but know that this is denied by his Oppo&s;ites, and is the main hinge of the Controver&s;ie in hand. We do main|tain this Antithe&s;is, that it is the Que&s;tion between us and them who are for the indifferency of Church Go|vernment, whether the exerci&s;e of Ruling Power may be taken out of the hands of Mini&s;ters, and given un|to one, to be Bi&s;hop over them: and we maintain the negative as that which &s;hould be out of Que&s;tion: and this we &s;hall not barely a&s;&s;ort, as Mr. <HI>Stillingf.</HI> hath done his Opinion. I. Then, this taking the exerci&s;e of that power from men, which Chri&s;t hath given them is unwarrantable; <HI>ergo,</HI> it is unlawful; I hope, the con|&s;equence will not be denied: for what we lawfully do mu&s;t be &s;ome way warranted, either by a Command or a Permi&s;&s;ion. The Antecedent I prove, becau&s;e a war|rant for &s;uch a practice cannot be &s;hewed, and further, if there were any warrant for it, it mu&s;t either be from Chri&s;ts command, or 2. From his expre&s;s Permi&s;&s;ion, or 3. From the Law of Nature, or 4. From want of a Law forbidding it: But none of the&s;e do warrant it, not the Fir&s;t nor Second, for our Oppo&s;ite cannot pro|duce &s;uch Command or Permi&s;&s;ion, either directly let down or drawn by con&s;equence from it. Nor the Third, for then they mu&s;t produce &s;ome dictate of the Law of Nature which giveth leave to do this; but what that &s;hall be I under&s;tand not. Nature indeed teacheth, that a Society may u&s;e means, for its own Peace and Order: but this may be without hindering the exerci&s;e of that power, the Supreme Governour giveth to any of his Officers: there may be this in the Church where Presbyters Rule in Common. Nature
<PB N="80" REF="43">al&s;o teacheth that when more have a Common power, they may con&s;ult about the be&s;t way of Managing it; but it doth not teach that they may mannage it other|wi&s;e then it is committed to them by him who gave it; which they mu&s;t do if they put it into the hands of one, which is given to more: e&s;pecially, when it may be managed well without &s;uch cro&s;&s;ing the In&s;titution of it. Be&s;ides all this, Nature can never warrant this alienation of the Power that Chri&s;t hath given to his Servants; becau&s;e Nature doth only warrant us to &s;tep be&s;ide Chri&s;ts In&s;titution (in his matters) where In&s;ti|tution is not &s;ufficient to attain that which is naturally nece&s;&s;ary; or when the Acting only by In&s;titution would cro&s;s Nature: but there is no natural nece&s;&s;i|ty of giving all power to a Bi&s;hop, which Chri&s;t hath given to Presbyters: neither doth leaving the exer|ci&s;e of it in common cro&s;s Nature: <HI>Ergo</HI> Nature doth not warrant this practice. Neither can the fourth warrant it, for then it &s;hould be in the power of men to take all the power that Mini&s;ters have from Chri&s;t out of their hands and give it to one, &s;o that only my Lord Bi&s;hop might preach, bapti&s;e, <HI>&amp;c.</HI> as well as that he only may rule; for their is no Law forbidding the Church, to lay all the parts of Pa&s;toral power on one, more then forbidding to lay one part of it on one. Sure &s;obriety and due reverence to the In&s;titutions of Chri&s;t would teach us to think, that while he hath given equal power to many it &s;hould be a &s;ufficient forbidding, that any be &s;o bold as to lay the exerci&s;e of that power on one, taking it from the re&s;t.</P>
<P><HI>Sect.</HI> 18. 2. I prove it thus. When Chri&s;t giveth a power to his Servants to manage the affairs of his Church, it is not only a Licence, whereby they are au|thorized to do &s;uch work, if they think fit, but it is a tru&s;t: they get it as a charge that they mu&s;t give ac|count of, as is evident from the command to this purpo&s;e given them, <HI>Act.</HI> 20.28. take heed to the
<PB N="81" REF="43">Flock over which the Holy Gho&s;t hath made you Over&s;eers: here is a Command to Over&s;eers to do that work, and they mu&s;t give an account of this their charge, <HI>Heb.</HI> 13.17. Rulers who mu&s;t be obeyed are &s;uch who mu&s;t give an account. Now it is not law|ful for one, who getteth &s;uch a Tru&s;t to lay it on ano|ther: neither may any take it out of his hands to be&s;tow it upon another without his leave, who gave that tru&s;t: when Chri&s;t hath Commanded Mini&s;ters to rule, and will &s;eek account of them, may they lay their work on a Bi|&s;hop? will it be well taken in the day of Account, to &s;ay, they committed their Flock to another to keep, who left them to the Wolf, or &s;cattered, and &s;lew them: will not the Lord &s;ay to them why did not ye feed them your &s;elves? Sure Chri&s;t will require account of them to whom be gave the charge, and that is of Pa|&s;tors, neither will he ask Account of Bi&s;hops, except for their U&s;urpation. <HI>Ergo</HI> it is not lawful, to take the exerci&s;e of Church Power out of the hands of Mini|&s;ters, and give it to a Bi&s;hop. 3. Proof. If Presbyters, who have received Power from Chri&s;t may put the ex|erci&s;e of it into the hands of a Bi&s;hop alienating it from them&s;elves; why may not Bi&s;hops devolve their Pow|er on one who &s;hall be over them, and &s;o we &s;hall have an Univer&s;al Bi&s;hop the Pope; in whom &s;hall re&s;t all Church Power, and at who&s;e direction it &s;hall be ex|erci&s;ed? If that may be done, there is no &s;hadow of Rea&s;on why this may not be done, for if once the Pow|er be taken out of the hand of them to whom Chri&s;t hath given it, then prudence mu&s;t be the only Director to teach us who mu&s;t have it: now prudence will as well &s;ay, that Bi&s;hops mu&s;t have one over them to keep them in Order and peace, as that Presbyters mu&s;t have one over them. Neither is there here any inconveni|ence that is not there; for that one may turn to tyran|ny as well as the other: and a Bi&s;hop cannot over&s;ee his charge, without &s;ub&s;titutes, more then the Pope
<PB N="82" REF="44">can do: the one may &s;ub&s;titute Bi&s;hops, Cardinals, <HI>&amp;c.</HI> as well as the other may &s;ub&s;titute Dean, Prebends, Archdeacon, <HI>&amp;c.</HI> Now, I hope, Mr. <HI>Stillingfleet</HI> is not come to that, to think the Papal Office an indifferent Ceremony. <HI>ergo.</HI> neither &s;hould he think &s;o of Epi&s;copa|cy. 4. If Presbyters may devolve the exerci&s;e of that power that Chri&s;t hath given them into the hands of a Bi&s;hop, then they may al&s;o give away with their pow|er the very Office that Chri&s;t hath given them: But this they may not. <HI>ergo</HI> I prove the Major, for when they devolve the exerci&s;e of their ruling pow|er on the Bi&s;hop, they not only con&s;ent, that they &s;hall rule the people, which they might do: But they make it unlawful for them&s;elves to rule, yea, they give up them&s;elves to be ruled and commanded by them, &s;o that he is their Judge and cannot be judg|ed by them, in ca&s;e of male-admini&s;tration (at lea&s;t this is true <HI>de &s;ingulis</HI> if not <HI>de omnibus</HI>) but this is to give away the very power; for if I may not act, how have I a power to act; if both I and the people be un|der the command of another, &s;o that I may not act any thing in reference to the People but by his autho|rity, how have I power to rule? &s;ure a power is the po&s;&s;ibility of the act <HI>(quantum e&s;t ex parte cau&s;ae)</HI> and a moral power is &s;uch a lawfulne&s;s of the act, but in this ca&s;e Presbyters want that po&s;&s;ibility, or lawful|ne&s;s of that exerci&s;e of Ruling; and that &s;o, as the defect or hindrance <HI>ex parte cau&s;ae,</HI> is in them&s;elves, who &s;hould put forth the acts, <HI>ergo,</HI> they want not onely the exerci&s;e but the very power of Ruling, which Chri&s;t gave them, in &s;uch a ca&s;e. The Mi|nor of the Argument is evident; for &s;uch an aliena|tion were a clear contradicting of Chri&s;t: he &s;aith it &s;hall be lawful for you (&s;uch a one being lawfully put into the Mini&s;try) to rule: he by this alienating &s;aith, it &s;hall not be lawful for me to rule. If it be &s;aid, that Chri&s;ts gift maketh it lawful for &s;uch a
<PB N="83" REF="44">one to rule, but not in all ca&s;es; as &s;uppo&s;e the good of the Church requires that this power be taken from him; his alienating maketh it onely unlawfull in this ca&s;e, when for the good of the Church, he hath quit his right: &s;o that here there is no oppo&s;ition; Chri&s;t giveth him a <HI>jus in actu primo,</HI> he alienateth onely this <HI>jus in actu &s;ecundo,</HI> as Mr. <HI>Stillingfleet</HI> doth expre&s;s it. <HI>An&s;w.</HI> 1. However there may be &s;ome co|lour of rea&s;on why this may be done in &s;ome extraor|dinary ca&s;es; when Chri&s;ts in&s;titution (which is cal|culated to ordinary ca&s;es, and mu&s;t ordinarily take place) cannot reach the end of Government: yet to &s;ay that it may be done ordinarily, cannot. but cla&s;h with Chri&s;ts in&s;titution: for when Chri&s;t giveth rul|ing power to Presbyters, though we may think that it is not his will, that they mu&s;t needs exerci&s;e it in all ca&s;es, yet mu&s;t we think that he intendeth they &s;hould exerci&s;e it ordinarily: for why giveth he them a power, which they as readily never as ever act, and that as men plea&s;e to determine? we mu&s;t not think that it is the intent of Chri&s;ts Commi&s;&s;ion to his Ser|vants, that men may without the force of nece&s;&s;ity laid on by an extraordinary Providence (and then God doth it and not men) hinder the acts of it as as they will. 2. It is &s;uppo&s;ed without ground that the good of the Church can ordinarily require the re|&s;training power given by Chri&s;t; for if we &s;peak of what is ordinarily good for the Church, how can we better di&s;cern that than by looking into Chri&s;ts in&s;ti|tution? wherefore, &s;eeing by this equal power, at lea&s;t <HI>in actu primo</HI> is given to Presbytery; we are to think, that the exerci&s;e of this power is be&s;t for the Church; though ambitious men, and they who would flatter the Magi&s;trate, think otherwi&s;e; yea though the be&s;t of men &s;hould di&s;&s;ent, &s;ure Chri&s;ts giving &s;uch a power &s;aith more for the goodne&s;s of the exerci&s;e of it then mens opinions, though &s;eeming to have a foun|dation
<PB N="84" REF="45">on &s;ome inconveniencies of it can &s;ay again&s;t it: e&s;pecially con&s;idering, what ever way be&s;ide, men devi&s;e, is attended with as great, if not greater in|conveniencies of another nature. 3. I have already made it appear, that this alienation of power given by Chri&s;t doth not only reach the <HI>actus &s;ecundus</HI> of it, but even the <HI>actus primus;</HI> &s;eeing a man is not in capacity to recal his deed, and rea&s;&s;ume the exerci&s;e of his power, though it were improved never &s;o much again&s;t the end of Chri&s;ts giving, and his alienating of it.</P>
<P><HI>Sect.</HI> 19. 5. Proof (which is directly again&s;t enlarging the exerci&s;e of Church Power in the hands of any be|yond what Chri&s;t hath given them) if the exerci&s;e of that power, which Chri&s;t hath given to all, may be taken from the re&s;t and given to one, then that one getteth a power both <HI>in actu primo &amp; in &s;ecundo,</HI> which he had not from Chri&s;t, but this is unlawful, <HI>ergo</HI> The Major I prove: for it is clear he getteth power <HI>in actu &s;ecundo,</HI> which he had not from Chri&s;t, <HI>ergo</HI> he getteth &s;uch pow|er in <HI>actu primo,</HI> &s;eeing <HI>actus &s;ecundus</HI> cannot be without <HI>primus,</HI> nor lawful exerci&s;e of power without the <HI>jus</HI> or power it &s;elf. If it be &s;aid, that Chri&s;t giveth only the <HI>actus primus,</HI> and that &s;o as it extendeth to the whole Church: and therefore no <HI>actus &s;ecundus</HI> of power can be given to one, which doth extend further than this. <HI>An&s;w.</HI> 1. It is true, he giveth formally only the <HI>actus primus,</HI> but the <HI>actus &s;ecundus</HI> doth re&s;ult from it, and therefore he giveth both. 2. It is true, the power that Chri&s;t giveth doth extend to the whole Church, but this mu&s;t be under&s;tood with a twofold di&s;tinction <HI>Di&s;t.</HI> 1. Disjunctive it is true, that is, every Mini&s;ter hath a power to rule whatever part of the Church, this or that, or another; &s;o that no part of it is without his Commi&s;&s;ion, as that he &s;hould go beyond his bounds in being &s;et over it. Conjunctive, it is fal&s;e, that is, Chri&s;t hath not given &s;o much of the <HI>actus primus</HI> o<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="UOM" EXTENT="1 letter">
<PB N="85" REF="45">power to rule all, or many Congregations. <HI>Di&s;t.</HI> 2. When Chri&s;t giveth the <HI>actus primus</HI> of power to a Mini&s;ter, extending to the whole Church; it is to be under&s;tood in adequate, <HI>i. e.</HI> that he hath a &s;hare in that power &s;o extended; and may in conjunction with other rule the whole Church: not adequate, <HI>i. e.</HI> Chri&s;t hath not gi|ven to any &s;uch a power, as that he by him&s;elf or with a few excluding the re&s;t, who are al&s;o in the Commi&s;|&s;ion, rule the whole Church. So that when ever any one exerci&s;eth authority by him&s;elf, or excluding o|thers, who have the &s;ame power granted by Chri&s;t, over more than his particular Congregation, over which he may have per&s;onal in&s;pection; he taketh a power in <HI>actu &s;ecundo,</HI> where Chri&s;t hath given him no <HI>jus,</HI> nor <HI>actus primus</HI> of power. The Minor of the argument is manife&s;t; for when both power and exer|ci&s;e of it is given to a man, which Chri&s;t hath not gi|ven; this is &s;etting up a new Office, which Chri&s;t hath not &s;et up: for what is an Office in the Church, but a power and a lawful exerci&s;e of it? but this our Au|thor confe&s;&s;eth to be unlawful, <HI>ergo</HI> 6. Proof. 'Tis pre&s;umption even among men for a &s;ervant to com|mit that work to another to do, which his Ma&s;ter hath given him to do, except he know, that he hath his Ma&s;ters leave &s;o to do: this is &s;o well known, that I need not in&s;i&s;t on it, <HI>ergo</HI> it is much pre&s;umption, when Chri&s;t hath committed the ruling of his hou&s;e to every Mini&s;ter, that &s;ome &s;hould devolve that work on a Bi&s;hop to do it for them, unle&s;s they could &s;hew Chri&s;ts warrant for this, which if Mr. <HI>Stillingfleet</HI> or any other will do, we &s;hall acquie&s;ce. If there be any di&s;parity in this compari&s;on, I am &s;ure it will tend to the &s;trengthening, not the weakening of our argument, for we are more ab&s;olutely under Chri&s;ts command, than Servants are under their Ma&s;ters; his commands are more perfect and effectual to compa&s;s their end, without our taking our own way in ma|naging
<PB N="86" REF="46">obedience to them, then mens are: al&s;o, the there is a greater tie to cleave &s;crupulou&s;ly to his in|junctions than to mens: al&s;o the matters about which they are, be of more weight, and mi&s;carriage in them more dangerous, then mens commands. All which make it more ab&s;urd to commit the execi&s;e of our power, that he giveth to others, than for Servants to do &s;o with their Ma&s;ters work.</P>
<P><HI>Sect.</HI> 20. For better under&s;tanding of what he had &s;aid, our Author &s;ubjoyneth a di&s;tinction of a twofold power belonging to Church Officers, <HI>viz.</HI> a Power of Order in preaching the word, vi&s;iting the &s;ick, admi|ni&s;tring the Sacraments, <HI>&amp;c.</HI> this he maketh to be in&s;eparably joyned to the function; and to belong to every ones per&s;onal capacity, both in <HI>actu primo,</HI> and <HI>actu &s;ecundo,</HI> and a power of Juri&s;diction, in vi&s;iting Churches, over&s;eeing particular Pa&s;tors, Ordination, Church Cen&s;ures, making Rules for decency: this he maketh to be in every Presbyter <HI>quoad aptitudinem</HI> and habitually, &s;o as he hath a <HI>jus</HI> to it in <HI>actu primo;</HI> but the exerci&s;e and limitation of it, and &s;ome further power of choi&s;e and delegation to it, and &s;ome further Authority be&s;ides the power of Order. And when this power, either by con&s;ent of the Pa&s;tors of the Church, or by the appointment of the Chri&s;tian Magi&s;trate, or both, is devolved to &s;ome particular per&s;ons; though <HI>quoad aptitudinem,</HI> the power remain in every Presby|ter; yet <HI>quoad executionem,</HI> it belongs to them who are &s;o appointed. To this, I reprove a few things briefly. 1. I take notice here of a contradiction in <HI>ter|minis,</HI> to what he taught, <HI>Part.</HI> 1. <HI>c.</HI> 2. <HI>p.</HI> 41. and we refuted <HI>p.</HI> there he made the power of Order pe|culiar to Mini&s;ters and power of Juri&s;diction peculiar to the Magi&s;trate, de&s;cribing both powers no other|wi&s;e then he doth here, and yet here he giveth the power of Juri&s;diction as well as of Order to Mini|&s;ters. 2. Seeing he acknowledgeth both powers
<PB N="87" REF="46"><HI>quoad jus</HI> to be equally given by Chri&s;t to all Mini|&s;ters; it is &s;trange that he &s;hould deny that men may re&s;train the one (for he confe&s;&s;eth the <HI>actus &s;e|cundus</HI> of it to be in&s;eparably joined to the Office) and yet doth boldly affirm that they may re&s;train the other; without giving the lea&s;t &s;hew of permi&s;&s;ion that they have from Chri&s;t who gave both powers, &s;o to tamper with the one more then with the other. If Chri&s;t hath made no difference between the&s;e (and if he hath it &s;hould have been produced) how dare men do it? I confe&s;s, Nature maketh a nece&s;&s;ity of re&s;trict|ing the power of Juri&s;diction: for if every one &s;hould Rule, when and where he plea&s;ed, there would be confu&s;ion; and therefore it is needful that every one have their own charge which they exerci&s;e this power over: but this is common to the power of Order al&s;o (though with &s;ome difference) for it is not fit that eve|ry Mini&s;ter &s;hould preach and baptize where and when he plea&s;eth, without any limitation. Neither could this be without confu&s;ion. Al&s;o Chri&s;t hath made a limitation of the exerci&s;e of the power of Juri&s;diction; for by giving it to many, and mak|ing it relate to things of common concernment, he hath, <HI>eo ip&s;o,</HI> determined, that none of the&s;e who have it, &s;hall exerci&s;e it by him&s;elf nor without the concurrence and con&s;ent of them, who are equal in Commi&s;&s;ion with him. This limitation of the exerci&s;e we confe&s;s to be warrantable: but what rea&s;on there is, I cannot under&s;tand, why men &s;hould take away the exerci&s;e of ruling power from many, and give it to one, more than they can take away the exerci&s;e of preaching power, and &s;o give it to &s;ome, as it &s;hall not be lawful for them to preach, but only to rule, more than they can take away the exerci&s;e of both powers, &s;eeing Chri&s;t hath equally given them. Sure it is an impregnable Argument that our Au|thor here furni&s;heth us with again&s;t him&s;elf; men
<PB N="88" REF="47">may not re&s;train the exerci&s;e of the power of order, further than Nature maketh it nece&s;&s;ary; <HI>Ergo,</HI> they may not any further re&s;train the exerci&s;e of the pow|er of Juri&s;diction, becau&s;e Chri&s;t hath not made &s;uch a difference in his giving the&s;e powers to men. If it be &s;aid, that the re&s;traint of the power of Juri&s;dicti|on is &s;ometimes nece&s;&s;ary, becau&s;e Parity breeds Fa|ctions, and many are unfit to rule. <HI>An&s;.</HI> Even &s;o, letting all preach, doth often breed Here&s;ie, many preach fal&s;e Doctrine, and many are unfit to preach. So this argument mu&s;t either plead for the re&s;traint of both powers, or of neither. Let us then &s;ee what mu&s;t be the remedy of this abu&s;e of the power of order, and the remedy of the abu&s;e of the other mu&s;t be proportionable: &s;ure the remedy is not to re&s;train the exerci&s;e of the power of preaching (except it be for a time, in expectation of their amendment, which holdeth al&s;o with reference to ruling power) but to put &s;uch unfit men out of the Mini&s;try. Were it fit to lay the work of an Heretical Preacher upon a Cu|rate, and let him &s;till have the charge of the Flock, though his Curate doth the work for him? No, but he &s;hould be removed, and another put in his place: Even &s;o, they who are unfit to rule, mu&s;t not have a Bi&s;hop do it for them, but be removed, that other fit men may be put in their place; &s;eeing ruling abili|ties are a nece&s;&s;ary qualification of a Mini&s;ter, as well as preaching abilities, as was &s;hewed before. If Pari|ty breed Factions, we mu&s;t cen&s;ure the guilty, not cro&s;s Chri&s;ts In&s;titutions in the exerci&s;e of that power he hath given.</P>
<P><HI>Sect.</HI> 21. 3. It is not good &s;en&s;e that he &s;aith, (&s;peaking of the power of Juri&s;diction) that though it belong habitually, and in <HI>actu primo</HI> to all, yet in a con&s;tituted Church, &s;ome further Authority is nece&s;&s;a|ry, be&s;ides the power of order. Whether this be the Printers fault, or the Authors, I know not: but &s;ure,
<PB N="89" REF="47">the power of order is no part of that Authority by which the power of Juri&s;diction is exerci&s;ed. 4. He leaveth us in &s;u&s;pence about the power of re&s;training the exerci&s;e of the power of Juri&s;diction; for he im|plieth, that it may be done by the con&s;ent of the Pa|&s;tors, or by the appointment of the Magi&s;trate, or both. If this power that Chri&s;t hath given his Ser|vants may be taken from them in its exerci&s;e, it is ve|ry fit we &s;hould know to whom the Lord hath given leave to do this. I believe, and have proved that no man may do it; but if it may be done, &s;ure it is not thus left at randome, that it &s;hould be <HI>primi occupan|tis:</HI> Pa&s;tors them&s;elves cannot do it, for they have got the charge; and they, not the Bi&s;hop whom they en|tru&s;t, mu&s;t give an account: The Magi&s;trate may not do it, for he is no ruler of the Church; but this is the highe&s;t act of ruling the Church, and of ruling and di&s;po&s;ing of the Rulers of it as he plea&s;eth; and if neither may do it, both may not do it, &s;eeing the rea&s;ons brought exclude both from any mea&s;ure of power in that thing. I do not &s;tand on the Authority of <HI>Camero</HI> (which is all the proof he hath for his o|pinion) cited <HI>p.</HI> 198. viz. <HI>Ordinatio non fit &agrave; Pa&s;tore quatenus Pa&s;tor e&s;t, &s;ed quatenus ad tempus &s;ingulare au|thoritatem obtinet:</HI> Neither &s;hall I &s;trive to &s;train it to a &s;ound &s;en&s;e; but be &s;atisfied with the truth, that we have upon better grounds than <HI>Camero</HI>'s Authority e|&s;tabli&s;hed, <HI>viz.</HI> that Ordination, and other acts of Church-power, are done by Pa&s;tors, not by virtue of any &s;uperadded power, or Delegation that they have from men, above what Chri&s;t hath given them in their Pa&s;toral Office, but by vertue of that power he hath given to all Pa&s;tors, though the conveniency of exerci&s;ing it, <HI>hic &amp; nunc,</HI> requires the concurring of &s;ome more circum&s;tances: <HI>Ergo,</HI> that other Pa&s;tors joyn in Ordination; that it be not without the limits which are fixed (for order) for the in&s;pection of
<PB N="90" REF="48">that Society of Pa&s;tors, whereof &s;uch an one is a Mem|ber; or if it be without the&s;e limits, that it be not without a &s;pecial Call from them, who &s;hould there ex|erci&s;e their Authority. The Conclu&s;ion of our Au|thor needeth &s;mall Animadver&s;ion, &s;uppo&s;ing what hath been already &s;aid: By this, &s;aith he, we may al|ready under&s;tand how lawful the exerci&s;e of an E|pi&s;copal power may be in the Church of God (yea, by what we have &s;aid may be &s;een how unlawful it is) &s;uppo&s;ing the equality of the power of order: (But we mu&s;t al&s;o &s;uppo&s;e (and it hath been yielded) the equality of the power of Juri&s;diction, at lea&s;t in <HI>actu primo;</HI> and that may &s;hew us the unlawfulne&s;s of Epi&s;copacy.) And how incongruou&s;ly they &s;peak, who &s;uppo&s;ing an equality in the Presbyters of the Church at fir&s;t, do cry out that the Church takes up|on her the Office of Chri&s;t, if &s;he delegates any to a more peculiar exerci&s;e of the power of Juri&s;diction: Yea, we have made it appear, that they &s;peak mo&s;t congruou&s;ly to the thing; for it is Chri&s;ts Office to give the exerci&s;e of power to &s;uch men, by giving them the Office on which it followeth; and therefore they who take it from them, and give it to them to whom he gave it not, do take his Office. But it is a mincing of the matter, to talk of a more pecu|liar exerci&s;e of the power of Juri&s;diction; when in|deed, &s;etting up of a Bi&s;hop, is a laying others a&s;ide from the exerci&s;e of it at all, and &s;uffering them to do nothing that way, but by his Authority: yea, that which we have all this while di&s;puted again&s;t, is yet le&s;s intollerable than is our ca&s;e, where Bi|&s;hops have mo&s;t ab&s;olute and Lordly powers, and delegate it to whom they will, Lay-men or others, and Presbyters have no power at all.</P>
<P><HI>Sect.</HI> 22. Another Argument he propoundeth, <HI>p.</HI> 198. from the perfection of Scripture, from which it doth much derogate, to &s;ay, that in it Chri&s;t hath
<PB N="91" REF="48">not laid down an immutable form of Church-Go|vernment. This Argument he almo&s;t tu&s;heth at; but that is ea&s;ier than to an&s;wer it &s;olidly: Unto it he bringeth three An&s;wers, all which will not make up a &s;atisfactory one. The fir&s;t is the perfection of the Scripture here meant, is in reference to its end (this I grant) which is to be an adequate Rule of Faith and manners, and &s;ufficient to bring men to Salvation; which is &s;ufficiently acknowledged to be, if all things nece&s;&s;ary to be believed or practi&s;ed, be contained in the Word of God: Now that which we a&s;&s;ert, not to be fully laid down in Scripture, is not pleaded to be any ways nece&s;&s;ary, nor to be a mat|ter of Faith, but &s;omething left to the Churches li|berty. <HI>Reply.</HI> I perceive it to be ordinary with this Author (I ob&s;erved it before) to &s;light with confi|dence that which he hath little to &s;ay again&s;t in rea&s;on. What a pittiful come off is this? that the not determining the form of Government is not a|gain&s;t the perfection of the Scripture, becau&s;e it is not a thing nece&s;&s;ary, but left to the Churches liber|ty: What it is to beg the que&s;tion, if this be not, I know not; for the que&s;tion is, whether the form be determined in Scripture, or left to the Churches liber|ty: the latter he maintaineth, we a&s;&s;ert the for|mer, and prove it, becau&s;e otherwi&s;e the Scripture were imperfect: He an&s;wereth, it doth not follow that the Scripture is imperfect, becau&s;e the form of Government is left to the Churches liberty. Is this the ea&s;ie di&s;patch of this Argument which was pro|mi&s;ed? 2. If the end of Scripture be to be an ade|quate Rule of Faith and manners; then &s;ure, in a &s;pe|cial way, of Religious manners or practi&s;es, among which is the way of managing Church-Government, being a Religious thing; for we &s;peak of Govern|ment as it is pecullar to the Church: hence then it mu&s;t belong to its perfection to lay down this, e&s;pe|cially
<PB N="92" REF="49">&s;eeing the Scripture hath told us, that this is one of its particular ends, to direct the Pa&s;tors of the Church how to behave them&s;elves in the Hou&s;e of God, 1 <HI>Tim.</HI> 3.15. but this it cannot do compleat|ly, without &s;etting down a form of Government, for general Rules will not tell a Pa&s;tor whether he mu&s;t exerci&s;e his ruling power with others, or lay it over on my Lord Bi&s;hop; <HI>Ergo,</HI> the want of this form in Scripture doth derogate from that perfection which our Author confe&s;&s;eth to be in it. 3. By things ne|ce&s;&s;ary, I hope he doth not mean only nece&s;&s;ary to &s;alvation, but nece&s;&s;ary to the&s;e particular ends pro|pounded in the Scripture, one of which is the right managing of Church-Government. Now if all things nece&s;&s;ary to this be laid down in Scripture, there can|not want a form of Government in it, for without that Government cannot be managed. His &s;econd an|&s;wer is, that the doing of a thing not contained in Scripture, with an opinion of its nece&s;&s;ity, doth de|&s;troy the Scriptures perfection; and &s;o in that &s;en&s;e every <HI>additio perficiens</HI> is <HI>corrumpens;</HI> &s;uch are the Po|pi&s;h Traditions; but the doing of a thing without the opinion of its nece&s;&s;ity doth not de&s;troy it. <HI>Re|ply.</HI> This is a poorer &s;hift than the other: For 1. It is not the adding of a form of Government to what is in Scripture that we make unlawful, or again&s;t the Scriptures &s;ufficiency; for &s;ure if it be not in Scrip|ture, it mu&s;t be added, &s;eeing Nature maketh it ne|ce&s;&s;ary: but it is the opinion of its not being in Scripture that we plead again&s;t; and therefore this An&s;wer doth not at all touch the Argument, neither is the example of Popli&s;h Traditions to the purpo&s;e; for we do not &s;ay that they are again&s;t Scripture perfecti|on, becau&s;e they are held not to be found in it, (for that is mo&s;t true) but becau&s;e they are thought need|ful to be added to it. 2. It is again&s;t the perfection of Scripture to &s;ay any addition to it is nece&s;&s;ary for at|taining
<PB N="93" REF="49">its end; whether that particular thing added to it be nece&s;&s;ary, or its defect may be as well &s;up|plied by another thing of that kind; as if any &s;hould maintain that we mu&s;t have more Sacraments than are in Scripture, and &s;hould not think this in particular nece&s;&s;ary, but leave it to the Churches liberty, what particular Sacrament &s;hould be &s;uperadded: But Ma|&s;ter <HI>Stillingfleet</HI>'s Opinion maketh an addition nece&s;&s;a|ry, <HI>viz.</HI> that there be a form of Government which is not in Scripture, though it leave the particular form to the Churches liberty; <HI>Ergo,</HI> it is again&s;t the per|fection of Scripture; and this addition being of a thing in its general nature nece&s;&s;ary to an end that the Scripture aimeth at, <HI>viz.</HI> the right governing of the Church, and not being found in Scripture, &s;o much as that men may determine it, it is &s;uch an <HI>additio perficiens</HI> as the Author confe&s;&s;eth to be <HI>cor|rumpens.</HI> 3. By this An&s;wer, none of the Popi&s;h Tra|ditions are additions to the Scripture, or imply its imperfection; for though they be held nece&s;&s;ary in the general, yet in particular they cannot &s;o be held; for either they were freely determined by the Church, and &s;o they might not have been, and therefore are not nece&s;&s;ary, or the Church was nece&s;&s;itated to de|termine them by &s;ome antecedent objective truth in the things: if &s;o, they mu&s;t be the Dictates of Na|ture, which are no additions to Scripture; wherefore this An&s;wer de&s;troyeth it &s;elf. 4. At lea&s;t, by this An&s;wer, all the Popi&s;h and Prelatical Ceremonies, and what&s;oever &s;uper&s;titious men can devi&s;e to bring into the wor&s;hip of God, is no addition to the Scrip|ture, nor a blot upon its perfection; for the&s;e are not held for nece&s;&s;ary things, but indifferent, and only ne|ce&s;&s;ary when commanded by Authority; which ne|ce&s;&s;ity, I &s;uppo&s;e, Mr. <HI>Stilling.</HI> will plead for to his form of Government. Now this Con&s;equence I hope he will not own; wherefore he may be a&s;hamed to
<PB N="94" REF="50">own that from which it doth &s;o clearly follow. His third An&s;wer is yet of le&s;s weight, <HI>viz.</HI> that the E&s;|&s;entials of Church Government are in Scripture, not the Circum&s;tantials. <HI>Reply.</HI> If he meaneth, as &s;ure he doth, the E&s;&s;entials of Government in its general and ab&s;tract notion, in which it is not practicable without a particular form, he &s;aith nothing to the purpo&s;e: The Scripture may be an imperfect rule for Church-Government, though it have the&s;e; if he mean the E&s;&s;entials of a particular form, he de|&s;troyeth his own cau&s;e. Now we maintain, that to the perfection of Scripture there is required not only a general notion of Government, but &s;o much as is &s;ufficient light to direct the practice of Government: this cannot be without the in&s;titution of a particular form, for Government otherwi&s;e is not practicable. If it be &s;aid, that the general rules in Scripture about Government want nothing requi&s;ite for the compleat practi&s;e of Government, but the determination of cir|cum&s;tances, which cannot belong to Scripture perfe|ction. <HI>An&s;.</HI> This we deny (if by general Rules he means, as &s;ure he doth, &s;uch as do not determine a particular form) it is &s;ome more than a circum&s;tance, whether Pa&s;tors exerci&s;e that power Chri&s;t hath gi|ven them, or commit it to a Bi&s;hop. I hope it is more than a bare circum&s;tance in Civil Government, whether the power be in the hand of one, or a few, or all the people, even &s;o 'tis here: yea, herein lieth the very E&s;&s;ence of a form of Government; if this then be not found in Scripture, the E&s;&s;entials of a form are wanting; but a form is e&s;&s;ential to Govern|ment, con&s;idered as practicable; <HI>Ergo,</HI> &s;ome of the E&s;&s;entials of Government are wanting.</P>
</DIV2>
<DIV2 N="5" TYPE="chapter">
<PB N="97" REF="50">
<HEAD>CHAP. V.</HEAD>
<P>HAving refuted as he &s;uppo&s;ed the general Arguments, for a particular Form of Church-Government to have been laid down in Scripture; he cometh now to par|ticular Arguments, which are brought for &s;ome one Form, and many he taketh much pains to refute in this Chapter, which I am confident never any did make U&s;e of to prove what he oppo&s;eth. We &s;hall let him pa&s;s with his &s;uppo&s;ed Victory over the&s;e, and only take notice of what oppo&s;eth the Truth we hold, or the Arguments by which it is e&s;ta|bli&s;hed. I &s;hall only note, not in&s;i&s;t upon his large Ha|rangue, by which in the beginning of this Chapter, he chargeth all who are not as Sceptical about Church-Go|vernment as him&s;elf, with prejudice, and following cu&s;tome and education, rather than truth, and being loth to quit that opinion, though fal&s;e, which once they have been en|gaged in. To which I &s;ay nothing, but let every one &s;earch his own Con&s;cience, and &s;ee what grounds his Per|&s;wa&s;ion &s;tandeth upon. I hope the &s;incerity of many will be able to bear them out before God, and the &s;olid Rea|&s;ons they are able to produce will make them &s;tand before men, again&s;t &s;uch reproaches of this Adver&s;ary. Neither &s;hall I retaliate this his charity with the Jealou&s;ies of many who fear that they who ca&s;t Church-Government thus loo&s;e, that the Magi&s;trate may di&s;po&s;e of it at his Plea&s;ure, do fetch the &s;trength of their Arguments, and the life of their per&s;wa&s;ion, from no better Topicks then de&s;ign to plea&s;e them who can reward this their pains, or to hold fa&s;t that which is good (as &s;ome have &s;poken of their fat Benefices) what ever &s;ide of the World be uppermo&s;t, to which end this opinion is a notable mean. I de&s;ire to judge no man, the Lord will ere long judge our opinions and motives too: but this I am &s;ure of, we have no World|ly baits to allure us at this time, to plead for the Divine Right of Presbyteral Government, and if the Intere&s;t of Chri&s;t did not more move us than our own, we might
<PB N="98" REF="51">with much Worldly advantage yield the cau&s;e. We do not in&s;i&s;t on any of Chri&s;ts acts towards the <HI>Apo&s;tles</HI> in calling them, &s;ending them out either fir&s;t or la&s;t, as Ar|guments for the Form of Church-Government; knowing that their Office being Extraordinary and Temporal, can be no Rule for the ordinary ca&s;es of the Church. Where|fore I pa&s;s over all that he writeth in this Chap. till <HI>p.</HI> 218. Where he undertaketh to vindicate two places of Scrip|ture from determining Parity or Imparity in the Church. The fir&s;t is <HI>Mat.</HI> 20.25. to which is parallel <HI>Luk.</HI> 22.25. <HI>The Kings of the Gentiles exerci&s;e Authority over them, and they that exerci&s;e authority over them, are called Benefactors: but ye &s;hall not be &s;o.</HI> Though I confe&s;s, there be other pla|ces more unque&s;tionable to our purpo&s;e; yet I &s;ee not the weight of what he hath &s;aid again&s;t this place, being brought as an Argument again&s;t Imparity. His An&s;wer is made up of two, Fir&s;t, he a&s;&s;erteth, and &s;olidly proveth a|gain&s;t <HI>Papi&s;ts,</HI> that it is not the abu&s;e of Power that is here forbidden, but that the Power it &s;elf &s;poken of is forbidden, as incompetent to Church-Officers; his Proofs for this I need not repeat, I accept it of him as a Conce&s;&s;ion. Second|ly, He &s;aith it is only Civil Power that is here forbidden; and &s;o it doth not make again&s;t Imparity in Church-Offi|cers, <HI>Reply.</HI> He keepeth his wonted way here, which is to take much pains, to prove what is lea&s;t in debate with the adver&s;aries he dealeth with: we do not que&s;tion but the Power it &s;elf, not the abu&s;e of it is here &s;poken again&s;t: but that it is Civil Power only we que&s;tion; and that he hath not &s;pent one word to prove. We affirm that Chri&s;t is here making a difference between his Apo&s;tles and Civil Governors in this; that one of them &s;hould not have Au|thority over another, as it is among Rulers of States and Kingdoms; and &s;o that there &s;hould be no Imparity of Power among them; to prove this, I borrow the <HI>3d</HI> rea&s;on by which Mr. <HI>Still.</HI> militateth again&s;t the abu&s;e of Power being here meant, <HI>viz.</HI> This only can an&s;wer the Scope of the Apo&s;tles contention, which was about Primacy. The Sons of <HI>Zebedee</HI> would have been &s;et over the re&s;t, <HI>Mat.</HI>
<PB N="99" REF="51">20. and their Strife was, which &s;hould be <GAP DESC="foreign"> pro <GAP DESC="foreign"> (&s;o <HI>Dru&s;ius</HI> cited by <HI>Leigh Crit. Sac.</HI>) that is, who &s;hould be Pope over the re&s;t: now, though we deny not but theirs might be upon a Civil and Coactive Power, they dreaming of an earthly Kingdome of Chri&s;t, yet &s;ure, this was neither mainly nor only in their de&s;ign: not only, becau&s;e they could not but know that Chri&s;ts Kingdome, in which they were to be Officers, &s;hould be Spiritual, and conver&s;ant about the things of another life, though they thought it might be Worldly to, and therefore it could not be; but they de&s;igned a Supremacy in that re&s;pect al&s;o, not mainly, both becau&s;e they could not but know that their main work both in teaching and ruling, was to be a|bout the things of Eternity: as al&s;o it is evident from <HI>Luk.</HI> 22.24. that their contention was about Supremacy in a Power that then they had begun to be partakers of, <GAP DESC="foreign">: but they knew very well that yet they had no Civil Power: &s;eeing then they con|tended about Eccl &s;ia&s;tical Supremacy, and Chri&s;ts an&s;wer is &s;uted to their Intention, and doth wholly di&s;charge that Power whereof it &s;peaketh: the fir&s;t of which I have pro|ved; the two latter Mr. <HI>Still.</HI> hath confe&s;&s;ed: it follow|eth, that Chri&s;t doth here forbid all Superiority of the Apo|&s;tles, one over another: &s;o that not only Chri&s;t had not &s;et one over the re&s;t but he will not permit them&s;elves to do it if they would: <GAP DESC="foreign"> is a Simple forbidding of it. Hence I inferre the Argument to our purpo&s;e thus, if the Apo&s;tles who had received equal power from Chri&s;t, might not delegate that Power to one whom they might &s;et up as chief; then Presbyters may not do this neither, <HI>Ergo</HI> Impa|rity of Presbyters is unlawful. The con&s;equence is evident, the antecedent I prove from parity of Rea&s;on: it is not im|maginable that Presbyters may &s;et one of them&s;elves over them&s;elves: and that Bi&s;hops may not do the like, and Apo&s;tles the like; &s;eeing order may require the one as well as the other. Yea, Secondly, if there be a di&s;parity of rea|&s;on it maketh much for us, for &s;ure the Apo&s;tles had more
<PB N="100" REF="52">liberty of managing that Power, they had received from Chri&s;t, by prudence, than Pa&s;tors now have; wherefore they might far rather re&s;train the exerci&s;e of it in them&s;elves, if they &s;aw cau&s;e, than we may do. 3. I hope it will not be denied, that what is here &s;aid to the Apo&s;tles is not &s;aid to them as Apo&s;tles; but as Officers of the Church, who have received the &s;ame Power from Chri&s;t: that it is no Temporary, but an abiding precept: and therefore if it forbid &s;uperiority among the Apo&s;tles, &s;o doth it among Presbyters, Mr. <HI>Still.</HI> p. 220. objecteth thus; 'this place doth no waies imply a Prohibition of all inequality among Governours of the Church; for then the Apo&s;tles Power over ordinary Pa&s;tors &s;hould be forbidden. An&s;. <HI>concedo to|tum:</HI> we al&s;o grant inequality among Pa&s;tors and Elders. But that which we plead is, that here is forbidden an ine|quality among them who are of the &s;ame Order: that when Chri&s;t hath given men the &s;ame Power and Office, as he did to the Apo&s;tles; they may not u&s;urp power one over another, nor take it though others would give it them. This is clearly proved from what hath been &s;aid. And fur|ther, it may be hence al&s;o concluded, that the inequality which is among Church-Officers ought not to be &s;uch as is among the Governours of the World, where a &s;ingle Per&s;on may have his under-Officers at his command: but that inequality mu&s;t be of one order above another in place and rank, both which do concur jointly to the ruling of the Church; and thus al&s;o Epi&s;copacy is here made unlaw|ful. That Pride and Ambition is here forbidden, I readily grant him: but that the&s;e are not only forbidden, is clear from what hath been &s;aid.</P>
<P><HI>Sect.</HI> 2. The next place that he con&s;idereth is <HI>Mat.</HI> 18.15, 16, 17. Where, after private admonition is u&s;ed in vain, we are commanded to tell the Church, and they who do not hear the Church, are to be counted as Heathens and <HI>Publicans.</HI> That which he fir&s;t bringeth for an An&s;wer to this place is, <Q>That becau&s;e men of all Opinions about Church-Government make U&s;e of it to e&s;tabli&s;h their Opi|nions, therefore no Argument may be drawn from it for
<PB N="101" REF="52">any opinion.</Q> This unhappy way of rea&s;oning I have met with before, and in&s;i&s;t not now on it. It is the Devils way, I perceive, to rai&s;e contentions about truth among &s;ome; and having done this, to tempt others by the&s;e contentions to Schi&s;m and &s;lighting of truth. But we mu&s;t not quit the light held forth in this Scripture, becau&s;e men have darkened it, by their rai&s;ing du&s;t about it: let us &s;earch the more &s;oberly and carefully, not ca&s;t away the truth for this. Yet for all divers Opinions that have been broached about this place, Mr. <HI>Stilling.</HI> hath a new one of his own, which I &s;hall briefly examine. <Q>The difficulty of the place (he &s;aith well) lyeth in the&s;e two. 1. What are the offences here &s;poken of. 2. What is the Church mentioned. For the fir&s;t, he a&s;&s;erteth (with more confidence than &s;trength of Rea&s;on, when he &s;aith, it is evident to any unprejudi|cated mind,) that the matters are not of &s;candal; but of private offence and injurie: this he proveth <HI>p.</HI> 222. (his Arguments we &s;hall con&s;ider after.)</Q> For the Church, he propo&s;eth at length the <HI>Era&s;tian</HI> opinion, as very plau&s;ible: yet at la&s;t rejecteth it <HI>p.</HI> 224, 225. and returns to the Of|fences <HI>p.</HI> 226. <Q>which though he makes to be private diffe|rences and quarrels; yet he will not have them to be law|&s;uits, nor Civil cau&s;es; but &s;uch differences as re&s;pect per|&s;ons, and not things. And then he determineth <HI>p.</HI> 227. that the Church is not here any Juridical Court acting by Authority; but a &s;elect Company, who by arbitration may compo&s;e and end the difference: and &s;o concludeth <HI>p.</HI> 228. that here is nothing about Church-Government; though by Analogie &s;ome things about it may be hence drawn.</Q> This is the &s;um of this opinion, which I &s;hall fir&s;t refute and then con&s;ider his grounds for it.</P>
<P><HI>Sect.</HI> 3. And fir&s;t of all I cannot but wonder that this learned Author &s;hould with &s;o much confidence deny this place to &s;peak of Church-Government; and nor &s;ay &s;ome|thing in an&s;wer to the many Arguments for e&s;tabli&s;hing a Form of Government, which are drawn from it by many Learned men; as <HI>Gille&s;py</HI> in his <HI>Aarons</HI> Rod. <HI>Rutherford</HI> in his <HI>Jus Divin, Reg. Eccle&s;. Beza de Excom, &amp; Pre&s;byt. Caw|dry</HI>
<PB N="102" REF="53">of Church-reformation; and other Presbyterians: be|&s;ide many Authors of other judgments. What? are all their Arguments unworthy to be taken notice of, and ea&s;ily blown away with Mr. <HI>Still.</HI> his bare A&s;&s;ertion? for what he &s;aith of the matters of offence &s;poken of in this place, he &s;eemeth to aim at a new opinion, but I cannot &s;ee wherein it differeth from what the <HI>Era&s;tians</HI> hold, &s;ave in its ob&s;curity: for when he hath with them, made them to be no Scandals, nor Sins again&s;t God, but private injuries again&s;t our Neighbours, he will not have them to be Civil cau&s;es, or Law-&s;uits; but &s;uch differences as re&s;pect Per&s;ons, not things. What the&s;e can be I cannot under&s;tand, for what wrong can I do to my Neighbour be&s;ides &s;candali&s;ing him by Sin again&s;t God, for which he may not Sue me at Law? if he mean not matters of Money or <HI>meum &amp; tuum,</HI> but other injuries again&s;t ones Per&s;on, as beating, reproaches, &s;landers &amp;c. (as I gue&s;s he doth, &s;o far as I can &s;ee his opi|nion through the mid&s;t of his words) the&s;e are yet Civil cau&s;es, and matters of Law-Suit: and this is the one part of what the <HI>Era&s;tians</HI> here under&s;tand: neither do I &s;ee a|ny rea&s;on for under&s;tanding the&s;e here, and not other pri|vate Injuries, as the <HI>Era&s;tians</HI> do: for is it imaginable that Chri&s;t would pre&s;cribe this cour&s;e for redre&s;s of wrongs in our own Per&s;ons and names, and not al&s;o for wrongs in our E&s;tates? but it may be he meaneth that though the injuries here meant, be in matters Civil; yet the de&s;ign of the place is not to pre&s;cribe a way of making up the inju|ry, but of taking away the animo&s;ities, and quarrels that the&s;e injuries breed among Chri&s;tians; but this cannot hold; for &s;ure the be&s;t way of allaying the animo&s;ities that ari&s;e about injuries done by one to another, mu&s;t be by deter|mining what is the due of each, and who doth, and who &s;u&s;taineth the wrong, and &s;o making reparation of the in|jury done. We mu&s;t not then think that Chri&s;t hath ap|pointed one cour&s;e for repairing the wrong; and another for taking away contention about it: but it is his Will that Chri&s;tians in &s;uch ca&s;es, either let their wrongs be judged by the arbitration of Friends; or if that cannot be,
<PB N="103" REF="53">by that law: and whether&s;oever of the&s;e waies the matter be determined; that they &s;hould acquie&s;ce, and not contend any more. Be&s;ides this, when I receive a private injurie from another, it is my duty to lay a&s;ide all grudge and ani|mo&s;ity again&s;t him, which if I be willing to do, why &s;hould the matter be brought before others, or to the Church? if I be not willing to do it, it is not like that I will bring it thus to others, who may per&s;uade me to lay a&s;ide animo|&s;ity again&s;t him. I cannot under&s;tand how I can bring a matter of private wrong to be judged by others, except it be in reference to the getting of &s;ome reparation of that wherein I conceive my &s;elf to be wronged. If he mean that I &s;hould bring the matter before others, not that my animo&s;ity may be laid a&s;ide (that being my duty without &s;uch adoe) but that they may per&s;uade him who hath wronged me to lay a&s;ide his grudg, and be reconciled to me: &s;ure this cannot be the Scope of the place, both be|cau&s;e Chri&s;t giveth another rule in that Ca&s;e, which will &s;ooner attain that end, <HI>viz.</HI> Forgive him, <HI>Lu.</HI> 17.3. and indeed it is a more compendious way to allay his fury, to carry it dutifully, friendly and kindly to him, than to convent him before others. Al&s;o becau&s;e it is a &s;trange reflection of the Sence of the expre&s;&s;ion, Tre&s;pa&s;s again&s;t thee <HI>i. e.</HI> refu&s;e to be reconciled to thee: &s;ure there is no Warrant in Scrip|ture or rea&s;on from the notation of the word, thus to ex|pound it. And be&s;ides all this, this expo&s;ition de&s;troys the Authors opinion, <HI>viz.</HI> that this place is not meant of Scan|dals; for when one hath wronged me, and I am willing to forgive him and be at peace with him, and he refu&s;eth to be reconciled to me; this is a Sin again&s;t God, and a Scan|dal of an high nature. Now why the place &s;hould be meant of taking away this &s;ort of Scandal and no other (&s;eeing other Scandals al&s;o are Sins again&s;t the Scandalized, as is clear 1 <HI>Cor.</HI> 8.12.) I think it is hard to conjecture except Mr. <HI>Still.</HI> mu&s;t &s;ay &s;o to make up the opinion that he intendeth to defend.</P>
<P><HI>Sect.</HI> 4. But I &s;hall now prove that this place &s;peaketh purpo&s;ely of Scandals, or Sins again&s;t God, whereby the
<PB N="104" REF="54">Con&s;ciences of others are offended; and not of private In|juries. And that briefly becau&s;e this is largely and fully performed by all our Authors who write again&s;t <HI>Era&s;tians.</HI> 2. Our Lord had &s;pent the former part of the Chapter about Scandals, e&s;pecially in pre&s;&s;ing your &s;hunning to give offence, and in &s;hewing the danger of offences; both to the offended, and e&s;pecially to the offender, <HI>ver&s;.</HI> 7. Now in all this di&s;cour&s;e he had &s;aid nothing of the means of taking away of Scandals: wherefore &s;eeing he joyneth the&s;e words we di&s;pute about, to the former di&s;cour&s;e of Scandal; it may be out of que&s;tion that he is here laying down that way of removing the&s;e Scandals when they &s;hould ari&s;e in his Church, that the evils he had &s;poken of may not en&s;ue upon them. 2. The de&s;ign of this Remedy here pre&s;cri|bed is to gain the faulty Per&s;on: now this expre&s;&s;ion of gaining Men from that which is Evil, is in Scripture on|ly u&s;ed in reference to Sins again&s;t God, which are apt to de&s;troy men, and whereby they are lo&s;t. 3. this evil from which the Per&s;on is to be gained, is Sin or Scandal If it be &s;aid that it is gaining of a brother, when he is Per&s;uaded to lay a&s;ide animo&s;ity again&s;t a brother, and to be reconciled to him; this is true only and &s;o far as &s;uch animo&s;ity is Sin: for on no other account, freeing of one from it can be call|ed gaining him in Scripture-Phra&s;e; and if the&s;e animo&s;i|ties be here &s;poken of only as they are Scandals, then the Scope of the place is to redre&s;s Scandals; for <HI>&agrave; quatenus ad omne valet con&s;equentia.</HI> 3. To &s;in again&s;t a brother is (in the Phra&s;e of the New Te&s;tament) mainly, if not only, to wrong his Con&s;cience or Spiritual E&s;tate by Scandal. 1 <HI>Cor.</HI> 8.12. or to be guilty of Sin again&s;t God in his &s;ight or con&s;cience <HI>Luk.</HI> 15.18, 21. &s;o <HI>Luk.</HI> 17.3, 4. Neither can any in&s;tance be brought where it &s;ignifies a private injury as &s;uch; therefore it mu&s;t be meant of Scandal. 4. In re|dre&s;&s;ing of private Injuries in a charitable way, it is not u&s;ual to lead Witne&s;&s;es: but the&s;e belong to a judicial pro|ceeding; but here the matter is to be e&s;tabli&s;hed by Wit|ne&s;&s;es, <HI>Ergo</HI> it is a matter not to be tran&s;acted in &s;uch a way as this Author would have the&s;e private Injuries. 5. It is un|imaginable
<PB N="105" REF="54">that Chri&s;t would have us count our Brother a Heathen or a Publican, and would have him bound in Heaven for per&s;i&s;ting in a fact that either is no &s;in again&s;t God, or which is not con&s;idered as a &s;in again&s;t God: doth the Holy Gho&s;t any where &s;peak &s;o of private inju|ries, con&s;idered as &s;uch? no &s;ure; but if private injuries are to be thus noted with cen&s;ure by God and Men, it is under the notion of heinous &s;ins as they offend God and &s;candalize his people, and if &s;o: then Scandals are here meant; for if &s;uch injuries be here &s;poken of for that which is common to other Scandals, and e&s;pecially pri|vate injuries not particularly mentioned, but &s;et down un|der the general name of Sin; what a boldne&s;s is it to ex|clude other &s;ins, and make the&s;e only to be here &s;po|ken of?</P>
<P><HI>Sect.</HI> 5. Next, I come to con&s;ider his Notion about the Church, to which the&s;e offences mu&s;t at la&s;t be brought for remedy: <Q>It is, &s;aith he, no juridical Court, but a &s;e|lect company called together by the party offended, who by arbitration may compo&s;e and end the difference.</Q> A|gain&s;t this Conceit I bring the&s;e Rea&s;ons: 1. This com|pany is to be called together by the offended party; for the Text carrieth the whole managing of the bu&s;ine&s;s to be by him; and it is very like the &s;tubborn offender will not be active in this: now, is this a way that our Lord would pre&s;cribe for taking away the di&s;temper of a galled mind, that his Adver&s;ary (&s;o the &s;tubborn offender looketh upon the other) &s;hould chu&s;e the per&s;ons before whom he is to be convented, and who &s;hould judg him? this I cannot be induced to believe, except I &s;ee more proof of it than our Author's bare &s;aying it is &s;o. 2. We mu&s;t conceive that the&s;e three &s;teps of proceeding here pre&s;cribed, have &s;ome notable difference one from another, and are remedies of different Vertues and operations applyed to this &s;tubborn Di&s;ea&s;e. Now the fir&s;t &s;tep is &s;ecret Admonition: the &s;e|cond is Private and Charitable, not Judicial; the third then mu&s;t be different from both: which I cannot conceive how it is, if it be not authoritative. In this Authors opinion,
<PB N="106" REF="55">it is no more but this, when two or three Friends cannot accommodate the matter, then take a few more, having no more but the &s;ame power the former two or three had: now what great influence can 5, or 6, or 10 have to per&s;uade a &s;tiff offender, more than 2 or or 3 u&s;ing the &s;ame motives? 'tis not to be imagined that the difference can be &s;uch as Chri&s;t intendeth when he pre&s;cribeth this as a remedy of that evil the other could not cure. 3. When Chri&s;t is here pre&s;cribing a cure for offences which may fall out among his people, and is &s;o exact in de&s;cribing all the &s;teps of it and final re&s;ult thereof; we mu&s;t conceive that his la&s;t cure will be &s;uch as will effectually root out that evil &s;o, as that it do not any more hurt his Church or tho&s;e who are harm|ed by it. Now if the la&s;t mean be only arbitration, and no juridical authoritative act, this end can never be attained: for neither is the &s;tubborn offender gained, nor is he taken away that he may not the &s;ame way trouble the other party as before. What great matter is gained if the wilful party will not hear this advi&s;ing Church our Author dreameth of? he is &s;till a Church-member, enjoying the publick fellow|&s;hip of the people of God, for all that the&s;e arbitrators can do: and &s;uppo&s;e &s;ome do withdraw private intimacy with them, yet we cannot think that all are obliged to it by the authority of private arbitrators declaring him &s;tubborn, when all do not know the cau&s;es which made them &s;o de|termine, nor the proofs that did convince them of the truth of what was alledged again&s;t him. It is then evident that this la&s;t Remedy of the mi&s;carriage (be what it will) of a &s;tub|born offender which Chri&s;t here pre&s;cribeth, is an authori|tative act, and therefore the Church here is no company of private men for arbitration. 4. Though we grant that the word <GAP DESC="foreign"> &s;ignifieth any company called together, yet here it mu&s;t be of more re&s;tricted &s;ignification; and mu&s;t needs &s;ignify a company called out of the World by the Go&s;pel to wor&s;hip God, and to &s;erve him in the managing of his af|fairs and in&s;titutions; which is not applicable to a compa|ny of arbitrators called by a man, not by the Go&s;pel, to agree contending parties, which is a work of duty common
<PB N="107" REF="55">to all the World, and none of the &s;pecial works of the Church as di&s;tingui&s;hed from other Societies. Now that the word <HI>Church</HI> mu&s;t be thus under&s;tood, and not as Mr. <HI>Stilling.</HI> would have it, I prove 2 dly; It is con&s;tantly &s;o u&s;ed by the Writers of holy Scripture; neither can an in|&s;tance be brought in all the New Te&s;tament where any e|ver put <HI>Eccle&s;ia</HI> for a company met about any bu&s;ine&s;s, &s;ave that the Town-Clerk of <HI>Ephe&s;us</HI> u&s;ed it otherwi&s;e, <HI>Acts</HI> 19.39. and <HI>Luke,</HI> &s;peaking of him in his own dialect, u&s;eth it as he did, <HI>ver.</HI> 40. But when Chri&s;t here &s;peaketh of a Church to which he &s;endeth his offended people by a &s;tand|ing Law for the redre&s;s of their grievances, we mu&s;t cer|tainly conceive that he will have them by the <HI>Church,</HI> to un|der&s;tand that which is ordinarily known by that name in the New Te&s;tament; for how &s;hould they know the mean|ing of an ambiguous word, but by the con&s;tant U&s;e of it in the Scripture? 2. The demon&s;trative article added in the Greek putteth the matter beyond all que&s;tion, <GAP DESC="foreign"> &s;ignifieth a particularly de&s;igned Church, which they to whom it is &s;aid, have pointed out unto them: not any Church, this or that, an <HI>individuum vagum,</HI> or &s;uch a Church as them&s;elves may particularize or pitch upon: it is not [a] Church, but [the] Church, Now a company of Arbitrators cho&s;en <HI>ad libitum</HI> by the grieved party, are not <GAP DESC="foreign"> [the] Church particularly, as <HI>individuum determinatum</HI> de&s;igned by Chri&s;t; they are at be&s;t but [a] Church, and &s;hould be here de&s;igned only <HI>confus&egrave;,</HI> or <HI>vage, huic aut illi eccle&s;iae,</HI> which the word cannot bear. Now if we take it for a Ruling-church, or whatever Church in Scripture-&s;en&s;e, it is here determined what Church we &s;hould bring the matter to, <HI>viz.</HI> that particular Church we live in (at lea&s;t in <HI>prima in&s;tantia</HI>) and it is not left to our liberty to chu&s;e what Church of many particulars we will complain unto. Or if we take the article here prefixed to denote the <GAP DESC="foreign"> of that Church here &s;poken of, and to determine the word to its <HI>famo&s;tus &s;ignificatum;</HI> it hath the &s;ame &s;trength of an argument: for, not a company of
<PB N="108" REF="56">private Arbitrators, but Chri&s;tians, or their Repre&s;entatives met for the wor&s;hip of God, or admini&s;tration of the af|fairs of his Hou&s;e, are that Church.</P>
<P><HI>Sect.</HI> 6. I come now to examine what Mr. <HI>Stilling.</HI> hath to &s;ay again&s;t this interpretation of the place, or for that which him&s;elf hath devi&s;ed. <HI>P.</HI> 222. he undertaketh to prove that the Offence here &s;poken of is not any &s;candal or Sin again&s;t God, but a private injury. <Q>His arguments are, 1. from the parallel place, <HI>Luke</HI> 17.3. <HI>If thy brother tre&s;|pa&s;s again&s;t thee, rebuke him; and if he repent, forgive him;</HI> this is private injury, becau&s;e a private Brother may for|give it, which is not in his power were it a &s;candal to the whole Church, unle&s;s we make every private per&s;on to excommunicate and relea&s;e one another.</Q> <HI>An&s;w.</HI> That <HI>Luke</HI> 17.3, 4. is parallel to <HI>Matth.</HI> 18.15, 16, 17. I do not que&s;tion; and indeed all the Commentators that I have met with, make them relate to the &s;ame pa&s;&s;age of Chri&s;ts preaching: but this (if we may lay any weight on the judgment of men) doth make much again&s;t Mr. <HI>Still.</HI> for he under&s;tandeth <HI>Matth.</HI> 18. not of Scandals, but of the bare injury, &s;o then mu&s;t this place al&s;o, but the Text and context both do make it evident, as I conceive, that this place is not meant of Private Injuries (but in &s;o far as they are Scandals) but of &s;candalous &s;ins: I &s;ay the context doth prove it; becau&s;e our Lord is there &s;peaking of Scandals: it is the very purpo&s;e that he is upon <HI>ver.</HI> 1, 2. The Text al&s;o proveth it, for the fir&s;t remedy to be applyed to this evil, is Rebuke: which is known to be a more proper re|medy for Scandal than private wrong: and then, the fruit of this remedy, Repentance, doth relate to Scandals rather than to private wrongs. Neither doth it follow that it is private injury, becau&s;e a private per&s;on may forgive it; for we mu&s;t under&s;tand it of private Scandal, not &s;uch as is publick, and a &s;candal to the whole Church, as Mr. <HI>Still.</HI> &s;uppo&s;eth. Now when the Offender repenteth upon pri|vate Rebuke, the Rebuker may forgive him 3 ways: 1. By not charging him any more with guiltine&s;s, but looking on him, as one whom the Lord hath pardoned. That this is
<PB N="109" REF="56">called <HI>forgivene&s;s</HI> in Scripture, is clear, 2 <HI>Cor.</HI> 2.7, 10. where the whole Church is commanded thus to forgive the excommunicated man who had repented. 2. By exerci|&s;ing that Chri&s;tian familiar love toward him, which we ought not to exerci&s;e towaad them who live in &s;in. 3. By forbearing to bring the matter to any more publick hear|ing, which, had not the party repented, had been his duty. Now this giveth not a power of Excommunicating and re|lea&s;ing to a private per&s;on; but only a power of the pru|dent u&s;e of our own charity. His &s;econd An&s;wer is the &s;ame, only built on another Scripture, <HI>Matth.</HI> 18.20. <Q>Where Chri&s;t in an&s;wer to <HI>Peter</HI>'s Que&s;tion, bids us <HI>forgive our bro|ther as oft as he repenteth.</HI></Q> The an&s;wer is al&s;o the &s;ame; for we mu&s;t forgive a &s;candalous Brother (in the way but now laid down) as oft as he repenteth; and not bring him to publick Rebuke, but in ca&s;e of ob&s;tinacy. His 3d. argu|ment is this, If this be matter of Scandal that is here &s;po|ken of; then might a matter of Scandal be brought before the Church when there is no way to decide it, there being but one privy to it, who is the Accu&s;er, he affirmeth, and the Offender denyeth. <HI>An&s;w.</HI> 1. Doth not this &s;ame in|convenience follow if the matter be a private Injury? May there not in that ca&s;e be no way for the Arbitrators to de|cide the matter, the Offender denying, and the injured party affirming, and that where him&s;elf is the party? The Objecter then is as much obliged to an&s;wer this argument as we are. But 2dly, This inconvenience is ea&s;ily avoided thus: if the grieved per&s;on be the only witne&s;s of the fact, and the offender deny the fact, it ought not to come before the Church, neither is this injunction to be under&s;tood of &s;uch ca&s;es: but where either the fact is known to more than one (for even &s;o it may be a private and no pub|lick offence) or where the Offender doth not deny the fact; but denyeth that it is wrong: in that ca&s;e, fir&s;t two or three, then the whole Church mu&s;t endeavour to con|vince him. It is a bad con&s;equence; &s;ome works of dark|ne&s;s, for want of witne&s;s, cannot be decided by the Church; <HI>Ergo,</HI> We are not commanded to bring &s;candals before the
<PB N="110" REF="57">Church. That which he addeth <HI>p.</HI> 223. <Q>That Chri&s;t here &s;peaketh as to an ordinary ca&s;e, and in allu&s;ion to what was then in U&s;e among the <HI>Jews;</HI> which was to reprove one another, commanded <HI>Lev.</HI> 19.17. and for neglect of which, <HI>Jeru&s;alem</HI> was thought to be de&s;troyed by <HI>R. Cham|na.</HI></Q> This I &s;ay, is nothing to the purpo&s;e; for I &s;uppo&s;e the&s;e Reproofs, <HI>Lev.</HI> 19.17. and which are mentioned by that Rabby, were not only for private Injuries, but main|ly for &s;in again&s;t God: wherefore this con&s;ideration ma|keth not a little again&s;t the de&s;ign for which it was brought. <HI>P.</HI> 224. <Q>He will not have the Church here &s;poken of to be the Chri&s;tian Church; becau&s;e, &s;aith he, Chri&s;t is &s;peaking to a pre&s;ent ca&s;e, and layeth down a pre&s;ent Remedy. Now if he lay down Rules for go|verning his Church; this could not be, becau&s;e there were yet no Eccle&s;ia&s;tical Courts for them to apeal to: if then the ca&s;e had pre&s;ently fallen out, they were left with|out a redre&s;s, having no Church to tell it unto.</Q> <HI>An&s;.</HI> It cannot be proved that Chri&s;t here layeth down Rules for a ca&s;e pre&s;ently practicable, more than he doth when he im|powereth his Apo&s;tles, and chargeth them concerning their work, <HI>Matth.</HI> 16.19. <HI>John</HI> 20.23. <HI>Mal.</HI> 28.19. and yet will have them to delay a while before they &s;hould put all that power in act. <HI>Luke</HI> 24.49. And indeed we have far better cau&s;e to think that he is telling his people what to do in the after and ordinary times of his Church, than what they &s;hould do in that pre&s;ent and extraordinary ca&s;e, when the Church was not yet framed, and when they had him&s;elf per&s;onably to go to for direction. 2dly, However we main|tain that this Rule, as it &s;erveth for our time, &s;o might it &s;erve for that time in which it was &s;poken: for if the ca&s;e had then fallen out, though there were not the ordinary Eccle&s;ia&s;tical Courts to go to, that now ought to be, yet there wanted not a vi&s;ible Church-power re&s;iding in the per&s;on of Chri&s;t, and after in the Apo&s;tles, to whom did &s;ucceed the ordinary Judicatures: &s;o that the offended par|ty wanted never a Church to make his complaint unto. I do not &s;ay that <HI>[Tell the Church]</HI> doth directly &s;ignifie
<PB N="111" REF="57">any other to which the complaint was to be made, but the ordinary guides of the Church; for our Lord accommoda|teth his terms he u&s;eth to the ordinary ca&s;es in which this Law was to take place; but by Analogie, it is applicable to any who in extraordinary ca&s;es act the part of the or|dinary Guides of the Church.</P>
<P><HI>Sect.</HI> 7. I agree to the argument of Mr. <HI>Gille&s;py,</HI> cited by the Author, that unle&s;s we under&s;tand the word Church as u&s;u|ally, it would be no ea&s;ie matter to know what Chri&s;t here meaneth by the Church; for &s;eeing this was to be a &s;tand|ing Law in all Ages, 'tis not imaginable that the Lord would have us otherwi&s;e under&s;tand the terms of it than they are ordinarily u&s;ed in the Bible, which he intended &s;hould con&s;tantly be in his Peoples hands. Neither is that of any weight which our Author oppo&s;eth to this; that &s;uch as &s;o argue would do well to con&s;ider, how tho&s;e to whom Chri&s;t &s;pake, &s;hould apprehend his meaning, if he &s;pake in a &s;en&s;e they never heard of before. We confi|der that they may ea&s;ily under&s;tand Chri&s;ts words, becau&s;e he had often before &s;poken to them of the Go&s;pel-church that was to be &s;et up, and even in this very term of a Church, as <HI>Matth.</HI> 16.19. and frequently under the noti|on of the <HI>Kingdom of Heaven;</HI> which they might ea&s;ily ap|prehend to be meant by the Church. Wherefore the Au|thor did not well con&s;ider what he &s;aid, when he &s;uppo&s;ed this language to be unknown to the Di&s;ciples. Hence all that he &s;aith of the way of under&s;tanding Scripture in the &s;ence of the words then common, is not to the purpo&s;e; for, Chri&s;t had made this &s;en&s;e common among them. Nei|ther mu&s;t we under&s;tand the word as it was then common|ly apprehended among the <HI>Jews,</HI> but as it was apprehend|ed among Chri&s;ts ordinary Hearers, who were in expecta|tion of another Church, and another way of Government in it to be &s;et up, than was then among the <HI>Jews.</HI> I find no more in the Author that is argumentative either again&s;t our opinion of this Text, or for his own. He concludeth <HI>p.</HI> 228. that this place, though it &s;peaks not of Church-government, yet it may have &s;ome influence on it by way
<PB N="112" REF="58">of Analogy, <HI>viz.</HI> in proving, 1. Gradual Appeals, 2. Church-cen&s;ures, 3. The lawfulne&s;s of Excommunication. This he yieldeth at lea&s;t, that &s;omething of Church-Govern|ment may be inferred from this place: then <HI>ex conce&s;&s;is,</HI> it is not &s;o impertinent to this purpo&s;e as he would have made us believe in the beginning of this Chapter.</P>
<P><HI>Sect.</HI> 8. But let us &s;ee 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 a&s;&s;ert, that it doth implicitly determine the form of Church-Govern|ment, <HI>viz.</HI> That it ought to be by Parity, not Epi&s;copacy; which I thus make out: The fir&s;t Authority before which the complaint of the grieved party is to be brought, is the Church, (and it is al&s;o the la&s;t:) but if the Church were governed by Bi&s;hops, this &s;hould not be, <HI>Ergo,</HI> The Church ought not to be governed by Bi&s;hops. The Major is clear; for after &s;ecret and private admonition (which are not au|thoritative) immediately &s;ucceedeth <HI>[Tell the Church:]</HI> &s;ure this Church mu&s;t be that Authority which we mu&s;t go to <HI>prima in&s;tantia,</HI> and al&s;o that which mu&s;t finally de|cide the matter; &s;eeing Excommunication doth immedi|ately follow upon Di&s;obliging this Authority. The Mi|nor I prove thus: in the Epi&s;copal way, the complaint mu&s;t be brought to the Bi&s;hop or to his Delegate or Dele|gates (which is all one as to the matter of Authority) and he mu&s;t be the la&s;t that mu&s;t determine, and on di&s;obedi|ence to him followeth Excommunication: but the Bi&s;hop is not the Church, <HI>Ergo,</HI> In the Epi&s;copal way complaints cannot be made to the Church, nor doth the Church fi|nally decide the matter. The Minor of this la&s;t Syllogi&s;m is evident; for neither the nature of the word, nor Scrip|ture-U&s;e will bear, that one Man &s;hall be called the Church. If it be &s;aid that Epi&s;copacy be &s;o modelled, as the Bi&s;hop with the Presbyter may judg of the offence, and they may well be called the Church. <HI>An&s;w.</HI> In that ca&s;e, either the Presbyters have a deci&s;ive Vote as well as the Bi&s;hop, or they be only his Advi&s;ers. In the fir&s;t ca&s;e the Bi&s;hop is
<PB N="113" REF="58">only a <HI>Prae&s;es:</HI> which is not that Epi&s;copacy pleaded a|gain&s;t, though we judg it inconvenient. In the 2d, the Bi|&s;hop is the only Power, and therefore there is no &s;uch Church as here meant, for the Church here is a Church cloathed with Authority, whom the party ought to hear, <HI>i. e.</HI> obey, and for contumacy again&s;t which he is Excommuni|cated: but the Bi&s;hop and his coun&s;el is not &s;uch a Church; for his coun&s;el hath no Authority, and him&s;elf cannot make a Church; and therefore both taken together, make no Church having Authority.</P>
</DIV2>
<DIV2 N="6" TYPE="chapter">
<HEAD>CHAP. VI.</HEAD>
<P>HERE Mr. <HI>Stilling.</HI> doth undertake to lay a&s;ide Apo|&s;tolical practice from being a pattern for us in the matter of Church-Government; What &s;ucce&s;s he hath in this attempt we now examine. His two main &s;copes in this Chapter, are, that it cannot be known what the pra|ctice of the Apo&s;tles was in this; and that if it were known, it is no binding example to us; which de&s;perate a&s;&s;ertions do, not a little, reflect upon the Scripture and tend to the ca&s;ting loo&s;e the Government of the Church, The latter of them I have &s;poken to before, and purpo&s;e to examine what he &s;aith for it. Concerning the former, I &s;hall pre|mi&s;e but this to our trying of his proofs, that it is very &s;trange the Spirit of God in Scripture hath written &s;o much of their practice, both Hi&s;torically, and implied it in Do|ctrinal a&s;&s;ertions and Precepts, if for all this we cannot know what it was; which if it do not accu&s;e the Scrip|ture-relation of things of great imperfection, I know no|thing: for I am &s;ure the Scripture doth purpo&s;ely &s;et down much of their practice, both in Preaching, admini&s;tration of Sacraments, ordination of Officers, directing the&s;e Of|ficers in their behaviour in the Hou&s;e of God, cen&s;ures
<PB N="114" REF="59">and other parts of Government: if yet we cannot know by Scripture what was their way in Ruling; the account given of the&s;e things mu&s;t be very imperfect. I believe it would be imputed to any Writer of the Hi&s;tory of a Church, if out of his Hi&s;tory could not be gathered what was the Government of that Church: &s;hall we then think that the Sacred Writers, who have undertaken to give us an account of the acts of the Apo&s;tles, are &s;o deficient? e&s;pe|cially many of the writings of the Apo&s;tles them&s;elves be|ing added by the &s;ame Spirit; out of which much may be gathered to this purpo&s;e. But let us hear how he makes out this his &s;trange opinion. I in&s;i&s;t not on what he wri|teth of the Apo&s;tles Commi&s;&s;ion; I confe&s;s the form of Go|vernment is not expre&s;&s;ed in it: though we have ground to think, that when Chri&s;t chargeth them to teath his Peo|ple to ob&s;erve all he commanded them, <HI>Matth.</HI> 28.20. that it was his Will that they &s;hould not leave &s;o great a matter as is the form of Church-Government to mens Will, but that his In&s;titution &s;hould be ob&s;erved in this: e&s;pecially &s;eeing he &s;pent 40 days with them before his A|&s;cen&s;ion, <HI>Acts</HI> 1.3. &s;peaking of the things pertaining to the Kingdom of God, that is the Go&s;pel-Church: it is hard to think that among all his In&s;tructions to them then, he told them nothing of his Will about the way of govern|ing his Church. Neither do I take notice of his large Di&s;cour&s;e about the Divi&s;ion of Provinces among the Apo|&s;tles: nor of his too true ob&s;ervation, that looking on an|cient practice through the Gla&s;s of our own cu&s;toms, hath bred many mi&s;takes: only I wonder at his bringing that for an in&s;tance, that Lay-Elders are proved from the name Presbyters: I believe there was never any that u&s;ed &s;uch an Argument, &s;eeing the name is common to them and Preaching-Elders. He will find &s;tronger arguments than this for that Order of Church-Officers, if he plea&s;e to read the A&s;&s;ertors of it.</P>
<P><HI>Sect.</HI> 2. For clearing what was Apo&s;tolical Practice he layeth down this as a foundation, <HI>p.</HI> 239, &amp;c. <Q>That the Apo&s;tles in the forming Churches did ob&s;erve the cu&s;tom
<PB N="115" REF="59">of the <HI>Jewi&s;h</HI> Synagogue.</Q> About this Notion he &s;pendeth a huge deal of pains, as if the &s;trength of his cau&s;e lay here; but to what purpo&s;e it is, except to &s;hew his reading and skill in Antiquity, I know not. Doth it follow, the Apo&s;tles imitated the <HI>Jews</HI> in the matter of Church-Go|vernment, <HI>Ergo,</HI> we are not obliged to imitate the Apo&s;tles? I &s;hould think that the contrary con&s;equence might rather be inferred; but whatever be of that, this we are &s;ure of, that whether there was any coincidency or &s;imilitude be|tween the Apo&s;tolical and the Jewi&s;h way, or not; Whe|ther the Apo&s;tles in what they did had an eye at the Jewi&s;h Example, or not: they were acted by an infallible Spirit, which did both guide them unerringly, and warrant them unque&s;tionably to do what they did in the management of Church-Government, &s;o that it is not the occa&s;ion of their taking &s;uch or &s;uch a way that we are to look to, but the morality of it, that &s;hould determine us to fol|low it, becau&s;e we know it is the will of Chri&s;t. Where|fore I might pa&s;s without any more notice all that he wri|teth in many &s;heets of the modelling the Government of the Church by that of the Synagogue. Yet for further clearing the matter, I &s;hall lay down a few Con&s;idera|tions.</P>
<P><HI>Sect.</HI> 3. Fir&s;t, I take notice how incon&s;i&s;tent this Au|thor is with him&s;elf in this Point; for <HI>p.</HI> 322. he a&s;&s;ert|eth, <Q>That the Apo&s;tles did not ob&s;erve (in probability) one fixed cour&s;e of &s;etling the Government of Churches, but &s;etled it according to the &s;everal circum&s;tances of pla|ces and per&s;ons which they had to deal with.</Q> I hope he will not deny, but the Jewi&s;h way of Government was one and the &s;ame every where: How then did the Apo&s;tles imitate that, if they were &s;o various in their &s;etling of Go|vernment? &s;ure if they did not &s;tick to one form, they did not &s;tick to the Jewi&s;h form. But I perceive he would fain &s;ay any thing that might ca&s;t Church-Government at an uncertainty; however the ways he taketh to this end, do cla&s;h one with another. 2. All this pains he taketh, tendeth either to prove nothing, or to prove that which
<PB N="116" REF="60">him&s;elf will not own: for &s;uppo&s;e that he had evinced that the Apo&s;tles did imitate the <HI>Jews</HI> in their Church-admini&s;trations: if any thing follow, it mu&s;t be this, that the&s;e things which were done by the Apo&s;tles on &s;uch an account are not now binding, but are indifferent and de|terminable by men: and that as the Apo&s;tles had their li|berty in imitating the <HI>Jews,</HI> or not, &s;o we have our liber|ty in imitating the Apo&s;tles, or not, in them. Now this I am &s;ure he dare not own in mo&s;t of the&s;e things which he maketh to have been taken up from the Jewi&s;h cu&s;toms: for he &s;peaketh, <HI>p.</HI> 240. <Q>of Chri&s;ts taking many Rites of the Lords Supper from the <HI>po&s;tcoenium</HI> among the <HI>Jews,</HI> and the U&s;e of Bapti&s;m from the Bapti&s;ms u&s;ed in initia|ting Pro&s;elytes, and Excommunication from their put|ting out of the Synagogue; and afterward he maketh building of Churches, to be taken from the Synagogues: publick reading of the Scripture, and Pa&s;tors from the <HI>Archi&s;ynagogi:</HI> Ordination from that u&s;ed among the <HI>Jews:</HI> Will then Mr. <HI>Stilling.</HI> &s;ay that all the&s;e are now indifferent.</Q> That Bapti&s;m, Excommunication, Pa&s;tors, nay Ordination are no In&s;titutions of Chri&s;t; and that as the Apo&s;tles took them from the <HI>Jews ad placitum;</HI> &s;o we may take them from the Apo&s;tles, or leave them, as we li&s;t. Sure he will not &s;ay it: and if he &s;aith not this, he &s;aith nothing, but <HI>magno conatu nihil agit: parturiunt mon|tes: na&s;cetur ridiculus mus.</HI> 3. It is needful to di&s;tingui&s;h the things that the Apo&s;tles did by imitation take from the <HI>Jews,</HI> by confounding of which Mr. <HI>Stilling.</HI> hath mired him&s;elf and his Reader too. There are 1. &s;ome|things that are the dictates of Nature and Rea&s;on: as that publick a&s;&s;embling be ordinarily in &s;ome one convenient place: that in a Society there be Rulers and Ruled: that where many Rule they meet together for that end: that in their meeting one pre&s;ide, to avoid confu&s;ion, &amp;c. 2. There are other things which be the commandments of God concerning his moral Wor&s;hip; as that Prayers, Prai&s;es, pulick reading of his Word, with opening of it, that his people may know his Will, be performed in the
<PB N="117" REF="60">&s;olemn meetings of his people. 3. God's ceremonial Wor|&s;hip, which con&s;i&s;teth in the ob&s;ervance of Rights &s;a|cred, or peculiar to Religion, without which all that Wor&s;hip of God might well be performed, which is, and hath been of moral and perpetual Obligation. 4. Such things as receive their u&s;efulne&s;s and fitne&s;s from cu&s;tom: as Words, Habits, Ge&s;tures, &amp;c. Now for the fir&s;t two &s;orts, though there was co-inciding in them, between the Jewi&s;h and Apo&s;tolical way (and indeed it could not be otherwi&s;e, Nature and what is of moral Obligation being the &s;ame unto all) yet that the Apo&s;tles were determined in the&s;e by the Jewi&s;h Example, we deny. For the 3d, It is clear, that the Apo&s;tles u&s;ed no &s;uch things with the Jewi&s;h Church, except a few for a time to avoid Scandal, <HI>Acts</HI> 15.28.29. Yea, they are declared unlawful to be u&s;ed, <HI>Gal.</HI> 4.9, 10. and 5.1, 2. <HI>Col.</HI> 2.16, 17. which I am el&s;where to &s;hew more at length. The 4th &s;ort of things we hold to be in them&s;elves indifferent, and deter|minable by the laudable cu&s;tom of every place. Neither do we deny the Apo&s;tles to have in many of the&s;e imitated the Jewi&s;h Church; and no wonder, becau&s;e they lived among them. Now Church-Government having in it &s;ome things of all the&s;e &s;orts, it is clear from what hath been &s;aid, how far we confe&s;s the Apo&s;tles to have follow|ed the <HI>Jews</HI> in it; and how far not. That wherein we are like&s;t to controvert with Mr. <HI>Still.</HI> is, about things of the third &s;ort, which I mu&s;t yet di&s;tingui&s;h: they were either &s;uch as the Lord had commanded to the <HI>Jews,</HI> or &s;uch as they without his command did take up. The former, he doth not alledg that the Apo&s;tles followed the <HI>Jews</HI> in. The latter he a&s;&s;erteth, and we deny it; and &s;hall anon hear what he bringeth for his A&s;&s;ertion. But for further clear|ing this and the whole matter, I lay down a fourth con&s;i|deration, <HI>viz.</HI> to make it out, that the Apo&s;tles did imi|tate the <HI>Jews,</HI> there are two things required. 1. To &s;hew the co-incidency of their practice. 2. To &s;hew that this co-incidency did proceed from a de&s;ign of conformity, <HI>viz.</HI> that the Apo&s;tles were determined in &s;uch things by the
<PB N="118" REF="61">Jewi&s;h Example: for the former without the other is no imitation, becau&s;e in imitation, the former practice mu&s;t have &s;ome influence on that which followeth; &s;uch as the exemplary cau&s;e hath on the <HI>exemplatum.</HI> Now if the Apo&s;tles did (in &s;ome of the&s;e) the &s;ame things with the Jewi&s;h Church, only accidentally, or upon other motives; and did not (as Mr. <HI>Stilling.</HI> phra&s;eth it) copy out the Jewi&s;h way of Government, 'tis no imitating of them.</P>
<P><HI>Sect.</HI> 4. From what hath been &s;aid, it will be ea&s;ie to maintain again&s;t Mr. <HI>Stilling.</HI> large Di&s;cour&s;e, that the A|po&s;tles did not in the Government of the Church imitate the Jewi&s;h Synagogue as their Pattern; I &s;hall touch &s;uch things in his Di&s;cour&s;e as &s;eem to prove it. And 1. I take notice of that which was occa&s;ionally touched before, <HI>p.</HI> 240, <HI>viz.</HI> <Q>That Chri&s;t delighted to take up the received practices among the <HI>Jews,</HI> as the <HI>Po&s;tcoenium</HI> he turned to the Lords Supper, Bapti&s;m of Pro&s;elytes, imitated to Chri&s;tian Bap|ti&s;m, ca&s;ting out of the Synagogue to Excommunication. And this he &s;aith he did with Rites, not which were ori|ginally founded on <HI>Mo&s;es</HI>'s Law; but which were brought in by a confederate Di&s;cipline among them&s;elves. This, &s;aith he, hath been abundantly manife&s;ted by many learn|ed men;</Q> of which he cited &s;ome in his Margin. I con|fe&s;s, many learned Men, e&s;pecially &s;uch as have &s;pent their pains in Critical Learning, have done but bad &s;ervice to Chri&s;t and his in&s;titutions, while to &s;erve their <HI>Phoenomena,</HI> and make their critical Conjectures the more plau&s;ible, they have made Mens devices like <HI>Maezentius</HI> his bed to curtail or &s;tretch out Chri&s;ts In&s;titutions by them at their plea&s;ure. But the Authority of &s;uch Men, though never &s;o learned, &s;hall not per&s;wade me (what their Rea&s;ons may do I &s;ay not, till I hear and con&s;ider them) to think that Chri&s;t had &s;uch delight in Mens inventions in the Wor&s;hip of God, as to make them the Pattern of his Go&s;pel-in&s;titutions; and that rather than the Ceremonies, which of old were of divine Authority: &s;hall we think that he who condemn|eth Mens Doctrines in Gods Wor&s;hip, as vain, <HI>Mal.</HI> 15.9. and e&s;pecially in that Chapter, condemneth a Ceremony
<PB N="119" REF="61">brought in by confederate Di&s;cipline, which in it &s;elf was as harmle&s;s as any of the&s;e mentioned, <HI>viz.</HI> often Wa&s;h|ing: &s;hall we think, I &s;ay, that he had &s;uch plea&s;ure in the&s;e things? &s;ure he cannot be &s;o unlike him&s;elf. Neither I am &s;ure can the A&s;&s;ertors of this Paradox, &s;hew any &s;uch difference between that Ceremony and the&s;e here in&s;tan|ced, as that Chri&s;t &s;hould hate the one, and delight in the other. For that often alledged, that the <HI>Phari&s;ees</HI> placed much Religion in their often Wa&s;hings (be&s;ides that the thing &s;imply, not their opinion, is condemned in the place cited) it cannot be made out, that they placed more Re|ligion in this, than they did in their <HI>Po&s;tcoenium,</HI> wa&s;hing of Pro&s;elytes, &amp;c. For further An&s;wer to this A&s;&s;ertion of our Authors, I add, that &s;uppo&s;ing Chri&s;t did make his In&s;tituti|ons to con&s;i&s;t of &s;ome material acts, like to the&s;e of the Jewi&s;h uncommanded ob&s;ervations (for this is the fur|the&s;t, that the Authors con&s;ideration can pretend to prove) it doth not follow that he approved of the&s;e inventions: neither that we may mould the affairs of the Church by our Rea&s;on and skill without Scripture; and that for the&s;e Rea&s;ons: 1. From Chri&s;ts Wi&s;dom. 2. From his Authority which did warrant him to do &s;uch things, and doth not make it lawful for the Church now to do them. 1. I &s;ay, from his Wi&s;dom: he is an able and competent Judg of what is &s;uted to Go&s;pel-wor&s;hip, and what not: and therefore of the&s;e unwarranted Ob&s;ervations in U&s;e a|mong the <HI>Jews,</HI> he could chu&s;e what was fitte&s;t for his de&s;igns (the things being indifferent in them&s;elves) and appoint them in his Church: we cannot &s;o well judg of the fitne&s;s of a thing to his de&s;ign in the Go&s;pel-model of af|fairs; and therefore mu&s;t not take &s;uch liberty in doing what Man hath done without a &s;pecial in&s;titution of Chri&s;t. Moreover, he knew well how in the depth of his Wi&s;dom to make &s;uch a choice in his in&s;titutions &s;erve unto two great ends, <HI>viz.</HI> the gaining of the <HI>Jews,</HI> by making as little diffrrence between the old way (to which they were wedded) and the new Go&s;pel-way, as could be: and the adorning of his Go&s;pel-&s;ervice with mo&s;t fit and excellent
<PB N="120" REF="62">Ceremonies: this cannot be pretended for devices of Men in Gods Wor&s;hip, whether found out by them&s;elves, or wherein they imitate others. 2. For his Authority, how|ever the&s;e Ob&s;ervations being uncommanded were on that account unlawful to the <HI>Jews;</HI> yet the things materially con&s;idered being indifferent, and Chri&s;t having ab&s;olute Au|thority to in&s;titute particulars in his Church, he might well chu&s;e the&s;e, and &s;eal them with his Authority, and &s;o make them both lawful and duty to us: this no Man can do; they mu&s;t have his Command for In&s;titution; and not make them by their own authority. Wherefore Chri&s;t ta|king the Jewi&s;h Cu&s;toms for Patterns to his In&s;titutions (if he did &s;o) maketh nothing for Men's &s;etting up their in&s;ti|tutions in the Church; or for the indifferency of things be|longing peculiarly to the Church.</P>
<P><HI>Sect.</HI> 5. That which he &s;aith <HI>ibid:</HI> maketh little to his purpo&s;e, <HI>viz.</HI> <Q>That even when God did determine the po|&s;itives of Wor&s;hip, he left the Morals to the wi&s;dom and di&s;cretion of his People: which he in&s;tanceth in building and ruling Synagogues.</Q> An&s;. this is true of &s;uch things as are of common concernment to Religion and other Acti|ons; we al&s;o allow &s;uch parts of Church-Government to be managed by Chri&s;tian Prudence: his m&s;tance proveth no more; for we permit al&s;o the building of Churches to prudence. But the que&s;tion is about things proper to the Church a it is a Religious Society: the&s;e things we deny to have been left to prudence among the Jews, or to be now &s;o left among Chri&s;tians. I cannot yield to what he &s;eem|eth to aim at, when he &s;aith, <Q>that though the rea&s;on of erecting Synagogues was builded on a command, <HI>viz.</HI> Of having holy Convocations, yet they were not built for a long time after they came to the Land:</Q> I cannot think that the building of Synagogues was indifferent though the place and manner was: for the &s;ame command that re|quireth holy Convocations, requireth that there be a place fit for them. If they were at fir&s;t long of building, it was either from &s;ome impediment, or from inexcu&s;able negli|gence. Much le&s;s do I agree to what followeth, <HI>viz.</HI> <Q>Al|though
<PB N="121" REF="62"><HI>Mo&s;es</HI> requireth the duty of A&s;&s;embling, yet he pre&s;cribes no Orders for the place of meeting, nor for the manner of &s;pending the&s;e dayes in Gods &s;ervice, nor for the Per&s;ons who were to &s;uperintend the publick work.</Q> An&s;. the fir&s;t of the&s;e, as to the Circum&s;tances of it, is left to Prudence, it being meerly a natural Circum&s;tance of Wor&s;hip, the &s;econd for &s;ub&s;tance is in the law, <HI>viz.</HI> What duties they &s;hould &s;pend the day with, <HI>viz.</HI> Sacrificing in the Temple, reading the Law, and Teaching the People in other places: the natural Circum&s;tances of this are al&s;o left to prudence. The third is fal&s;ly a&s;&s;erted: are not the <HI>Levites</HI> appointed to &s;uperintend that work when they are made the Publick Teachers of the Peope? Wherefore all this maketh nothing for his de&s;ign, <HI>viz.</HI> That the <HI>Jewi&s;h</HI> Church-Government was left to Prudence, and that the Chri&s;tian &s;hould be &s;o. Their reading of the Law we ap|prove; but deny it to have been voluntary but comman|ded; their curious dividing of it, and leaving out &s;ome of it we di&s;prove, as the fruit of the &s;uper&s;titions of the lat|ter ages of that Church: and indeed it may be compared with the frame of our Service-Book, though it was not &s;o bad by far. I in&s;i&s;t not on his gue&s;&s;es about the Government of Synagogues, which he taketh much pains to make ap|pear to be like the Government in the Apo&s;tolick Church, that he might make us believe, that this was taken from that. I only ob&s;erve that the product of all his pains is not <HI>operae pretium:</HI> both becau&s;e of the uncertainty of the mat|ter of Fact, that there were &s;uch Officers &s;o employed in the Synagogues: as al&s;o the far off re&s;emblances that are between them and Officers in the Chri&s;tian Church; as any attentive Reader may ob&s;erve. And &s;o I pa&s;s to <HI>p.</HI> 253. where he &s;heweth how far the Apo&s;tles in forming Chri&s;ti|an Churches did follow the Jewi&s;h Pattern.</P>
<P><HI>Sect.</HI> 6. I &s;mile indeed to con&s;ider how Mr. <HI>Still.</HI> mag|nifies this his notion, and judgeth this birth of his own Brain, as that which with his Improvement (<Q>&s;uch as it hath yet received from no other) will be more conducible than any he knoweth to the happy end of Compo&s;ing our
<PB N="122" REF="63">differences about Church-Government.</Q> I hope I have &s;aid as much of this notion. <HI>p.</HI> 186. &amp;c. as will make it to be of le&s;s e&s;teem with unbya&s;&s;ed men. I profe&s;s I cannot yet under&s;tand, for all that I have meet with in this Author a|bout it, how this Notion &s;hould have any &s;uch effect, for the Que&s;tion is not what pattern the Apo&s;tles followed, &s;o much, as whether what they did was the In&s;titution of Chri&s;t, and whether we ought to follow them as our pattern: and to the determining of this I &s;ee very little or no U&s;e of this notion which he &s;o much crieth up. But to make it get entertainment he taketh much pains. Fir&s;t, he promi&s;eth &s;ome general con&s;iderations to make it probable: and &s;hew|eth next how the Apo&s;tles did imitate the Synagogue in 4 particulars. Let us hear what probability it getteth from his Con&s;iderations. The 1 is, <Q>That Chri&s;t and his Di&s;ciples, and Chri&s;tians afterward went under the name of <HI>Jews;</HI> that they kept Communion with the <HI>Jews,</HI> and ob&s;erved their Cu&s;tomes, not only which were commanded of God, but which they had taken up them&s;elves, if they were not contrary to Gods commands.</Q> Here are 3 or 4 con&s;idera|tions jumbled together, &s;ome of which are fal&s;e, others true, but prove not the Point. I &s;hall an&s;wer them more di&s;tinct|ly than he hath &s;et them down. And fir&s;t for the name, it is no wonder they were called <HI>Jews,</HI> for they were &s;o by nation: if at any time they owned them&s;elves as of the <HI>Jewi&s;h</HI> Religion, that proveth nothing; for this they might do, becau&s;e the <HI>Jewi&s;h</HI> Religion, as commanded of God, was the &s;ame in Sub&s;tance with the Chri&s;tian, &s;ee <HI>Act.</HI> 26.22. It doth not from this follow that there were the &s;ame Ad|mini&s;trations in the <HI>Jewi&s;h</HI> and Chri&s;tian-Church. And if in after-times the Jews and Chri&s;tians were both reckoned as one body by the Heathens (for which he bringeth &s;ome proof <HI>p.</HI> 255. and 256.) yet it doth not follow, which he there inferreth, <HI>viz.</HI> That they ob&s;erved the &s;ame Rites and Cu&s;tomes: for this mi&s;take of the Heathens did proceed part|ly from the agreement that was between Jews and Chri|&s;tians, as to mo&s;t great points of Religion: partly from the Agreement of their Rites in this, that both were very un|like
<PB N="123" REF="63">the Heathen Rites. Neither did the Heathens under|&s;tand the difference between Jews and Chri&s;tians, though wi&s;e men among them knew that there was a difference: this may be gathered from <HI>Act.</HI> 18.15. and <HI>Act.</HI> 25.19, 20. It doth not follow from this, that the Rites were the &s;ame. 2. For their keeping communion with the Jews, this doth far le&s;s prove the point: and that becau&s;e, 1. the time when they kept Communion with the Jews was when the Jewi&s;h Church was yet &s;tanding, and the Chri|&s;tian not framed nor erected: our Author cannot prove that they kept Communion with them after the Chri&s;tian Churches were &s;et up: for their going to the Temple and the Synagogues to Preach, proveth nothing. For that they did becau&s;e the People were there met, not becau&s;e they would join in their Service. 2. Becau&s;e it was fit for that time to yield to the Jews &s;o far as was po&s;&s;ible, that they might be gained to the Go&s;pel: hence they ob&s;erved even &s;ome of the legal Ceremonies, they being then indifferent: but it followeth not that they did &s;ettle the ordinance and abiding practices of the Church by the Pattern of the Sy|nagogue. <HI>Paul's</HI> being freely admitted into the Synagogue to Preach, proveth no more than we have granted: his conde&s;cending to them did procure this, not his framing Go&s;pel-Churches according to their mould, much le&s;s is this his de&s;ign proved by the mi&s;take of the believing Jews about the conver&s;ion of the Gentiles, and their being zealous for ob&s;erving the Law of <HI>Mo&s;es;</HI> yea and grant that they were zealous for the uncommanded Cu&s;tomes of their Father, as he alledgeth. For this proceeded from their being bred up in the&s;e things, and their Ignorance of the mind of God in aboli&s;hing them, and in calling of the Gen|tiles: and the Apo&s;tle's yielding to the Jews as far as might be for a time, was becau&s;e he had not yet &s;hewed the diffe|rence between the Go&s;pel and Jewi&s;h Church, becau&s;e they could not then bear it: but with what &s;haddow of con&s;e|quence doth it follow from this that the Apo&s;tles did after|wards frame the Chri&s;tian Church after the model of the Jewi&s;h? For the <HI>3d.</HI> it is a bold and mo&s;t fal&s;e a&s;&s;ertion,
<PB N="124" REF="64">that Chri&s;t and his Di&s;ciples conformed to the uncomman|ded Cu&s;tomes of the Jews: yea they are accu&s;ed for Non|conformity in this point <HI>Matth.</HI> 15.2. And Chri&s;t defen|deth them in it, and meerly on this Account, that the&s;e cu&s;toms were the traditions of men, and humane doctrines: which is true of all uncommanded Cu&s;tomes in Religion. But how proveth he this A&s;&s;ertion? he bringeth In&s;tances; Chri&s;t ob&s;erved the Fea&s;t of dedication: this is Impudent|ly &s;aid; he walked in <HI>Solomons</HI> Porch <HI>Jo.</HI> 10.22, 23. that he might have occa&s;ion to teach the People: but did he offer a Sacrifice, or ob&s;erve any other rite or Cu&s;tome of the Fea&s;t? we read no &s;uch thing, going to their Synago|gues and teaching there was no uncommanded Cu&s;tome. Wa&s;hing the Di&s;ciples Feet a cu&s;tom u&s;ed by the Jews be|fore the pa&s;sover (&s;aith Mr. <HI>Still.</HI> but others &s;ay it was done between the 2 cour&s;es of the pa&s;sover) this Chri&s;t did, and giveth a My&s;tical rea&s;on for it. <HI>Jo.</HI> 13.5. but that he did it in Conformity to the Jewi&s;h Cu&s;tome (<Q>if any &s;uch there was) let it be proved, appointing Bapti&s;m I hope hath a better Foundation than the Jewi&s;h Cu&s;tome,</Q> but of this before; thus what he &s;aith in pro&s;ecuting his Fir&s;t con&s;ideration, is an&s;wered: neither is it as yet probable that the Apo&s;tles imitated the Jewes in framing the Go&s;|pel-Church.</P>
<P><HI>Sect.</HI> 7. His <HI>2d</HI> con&s;ideration <HI>p.</HI> 257. is that the Apo|&s;tles framed Chri&s;tian Churches out of Jewi&s;h Synagogues: what &s;olid Proof for this he bringeth let us hear. We &s;ee <Q>&s;aith he, how fearful the Apo&s;tles were to offend the Jews, and how ready to conde&s;cend to them in any thing that might be; and if <HI>Paul</HI> would yield to them in circumci|&s;ing <HI>Tim.</HI> (a thing which might &s;eem to cro&s;s the de&s;ign of the Go&s;pel) would he &s;cruple to retain the old Model the Synagogue, when there was nothing in it repugnant to the doctrine of the Go&s;pel?</Q> <HI>An&s;w.</HI> The Apo&s;tles at fir&s;t did yield very far to the <HI>Jews,</HI> becau&s;e they could not at the beginning dige&s;t the taking down of the old frame of Wor&s;hip, and &s;etting up a new; hence they did conform to the <HI>Jews,</HI> for that time, as much as might be in their tran|&s;ient and occa&s;ional practices: but this rea&s;on did no way
<PB N="125" REF="64">oblige them to frame their con&s;titutions and practices of the Church that were to abide afterward, by the Jewi&s;h Pa|tern, becau&s;e then the Go&s;pel was fully promulgated, and the Will of Chri&s;t known to the new Go&s;pel-Church, dif|fering from the old; and in this ca&s;e we are rather to think that the Apo&s;tles did not conform to the Jewi&s;h way in things not nece&s;&s;ary; becau&s;e as at fir&s;t, their work was to bring them to Chri&s;t, and &s;o they yielded to them as much as might be; &s;o afterwards now their work was tobring them from <HI>Mo&s;es,</HI> and to this end it was fit to bring them off all tho&s;e cu&s;tomes and waies which might keep that their I dol yet in their minds, as &s;ure he Jewi&s;h cu&s;tomes might do; Here is more then a &s;hew of rea&s;on (which our Author requireth) why the Apo&s;tle &s;hould &s;light the con&s;titution of the Jewi&s;h Synagogues; and be&s;ides, it is rea&s;on enough why they &s;hould do this, if it be not proved that they did other wi&s;e, &s;eeing they were guided by an infallible Spirit, not led by mens Cu&s;tomes in their Actions. I find no further proof of this con&s;ideration, but that they did not only gather Chur|ches out of Synagogues, but that in probability whole Sy|nagogues in &s;ome places were converted. What ground there is for this probability I know not; we read nothing of it, as we read of whole Hou&s;es converted: neither &s;ee I any rea&s;on to think that the Apo&s;tles did re&s;pect Synago|gues 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 be&s;t conveniency for partaking of ordinances together: but that their Syna|gogues were their Pattern I &s;ee not. Another argument from the Jewi&s;h and Gentiles <HI>Coetus,</HI> he would fain be help|ed by; but finding it weak, di&s;puteth again&s;t it: where|fore we lay it a&s;ide, and come to his <HI>3d</HI> con&s;ideration <HI>p.</HI> 260. <HI>viz.</HI> <Q>the Synagogue-Model was mo&s;t agreable to the State of the Churches in Apo&s;tolick times; becau&s;e it was &s;o ordered, as that it needed not depend on the Secular Power for attaining the end of Government.</Q> <HI>An&s;wer.</HI> Wherein the Synagogue-Model was, in the nature of the thing fitted to the State of the Go&s;pel, we do not &s;ay that the Apo&s;tles would reject &s;uch a good thing becau&s;e u&s;ed
<PB N="126" REF="65">by the Synagogue; only we deny that they u&s;ed it becau&s;e the Synagogue u&s;ed it: &s;o this proveth nothing. Further it proveth only co-incidency between the Church and Sy|nagogue-Government in this general that both were &s;uch as might con&s;i&s;t without Secular power: but divers parti|cular forms may be of this nature; &s;o that there is no need from this con&s;ideration that the Church and the Synago|gues be governed by the &s;ame Model.</P>
<P><HI>Sect.</HI> 8. We &s;ee how probable he hath made this his a&s;|&s;ertion: he cometh <HI>p.</HI> 261. to &s;hew what particular pra|ctices of the Synagogue, the Apo&s;tles did take up and fol|low; and fir&s;t he &s;peaketh of their publick &s;ervice in the Church: where all that he can attain to is this, <Q>that there was in the Church, as there had been in the Synagogue, &s;olemn Prayers, Prai&s;es, reading of Scripture, and teaching of the People out of it:</Q> all which are parts of Moral wor&s;hip; and would have been in the Church though there had never been a Synagogue to take example by; he is for|ced to acknowledge a con&s;iderable difference, <HI>viz.</HI> <Q>omitting the reading the Sections of the Law as was done in the Synagogue, and celebrating the Lords Supper, which was not in it:</Q> which one con&s;ideration de&s;troyeth all that he is at &s;o much pains to e&s;tabli&s;h: for if Chri&s;t and his Apo&s;tles had made the Synagogue their pattern, they might ea&s;ily have conformed to them in reading the Sections of the Law and taking the Lords Supper, from &s;ome of their cu|&s;tomes as well as they did Bapti&s;m, as this Author alledg|eth. Next he cometh <HI>p.</HI> 264. to ordination: about which he maketh a great deal of do, but to no purpo&s;e: for Ordi|nation <HI>i. e.</HI> a Solemn &s;etting of men apart for the Office of the Mini&s;try, doth naturally follow as nece&s;&s;ary to Order; &s;uppo&s;ing that &s;ome &s;hould be in that Office and the work be not common to all, which I believe &s;hould 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 u&s;ed in the Synagogue or not is not worth our enquiry, for it will not thence follow that the Apo&s;tles took it from the confederate di&s;cipline of the Synagogue (<HI>i. e.</HI> from their
<PB N="127" REF="65">men-devi&s;ed Cu&s;tomes) as our Author confidently a&s;&s;erteth: but all that he di&s;cour&s;eth proveth not this, but only, if it prove any thing, that it was u&s;ed in the Synagogue. I a&s;&s;ert with more warrant that it was taken up both by the Sy|nagogue and by the Apo&s;tles from the ancient cu&s;t<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="UOM" EXTENT="1 letter">me of ble&s;&s;ing, or dedicating any thing to God by this Ceremony: of this Judgment is <HI>Calv. In&s;t. lib. cap.</HI> 4. <HI>Sect. hunc autem ri|tum fluxi&s;&s;e arbitror ab Hebraeorum more, qui quod benedictum aut con&s;ecratum volebant, manuum impo&s;itione deo qua&s;i reprae|&s;entabant: &s;ic Jacob benedicens Ephraim &amp; Mana&s;&s;e, eorum capitibus manus impo&s;uit: quod &s;equutus e&s;t dominus no&s;ter, cum &s;uper infantes precationem faceret: eodem ut arbitror &s;ig|nificatu Judaei ex legis prae&s;cripto &s;uis &s;acrificiis manus impone|bant: quare apo&s;toli per manuum impo&s;itionem eum &s;e deo offerro &s;ignificabant quem initiabant in mini&s;terium: quanquam u&s;ui &s;it etiam &s;uper eos, quibus vi&s;ibilis &s;piritus gratias conferebant.</HI> We &s;ee then it was not the practice in Synagogue-Ordination only: but in many things el&s;e, and it is mo&s;t probable that this Rite &s;o con&s;tantly u&s;ed in all Ages of the Church, in all ca&s;es of ble&s;&s;ing or con&s;ecration hath &s;omething more in it then humane In&s;titution in the Synagogue: the con&s;tant u&s;e of it by men infallibly guided, as <HI>Abraham,</HI> the Apo&s;tles, Chri&s;t him&s;elf; the commanding of it in the like ca&s;e of con&s;ecration under the Law cannot but give it a &s;tamp of divine Authority. Yea we find the Levites thus ordained <HI>Num.</HI> 8.10. wherefore all this his pains doth not prove that Go&s;pel-Ordinance was taken up from the humane cu|&s;tome of the Synagogue. A few things in this his di&s;cour&s;e. I &s;hall further &s;hortly take notice of. <HI>p.</HI> 264, 265. he will have Go&s;pel-Mini&s;ters not to &s;uccceed (no not by Analogie) <Q>to the Prie&s;ts and Levites, but rather to the Officers in the Synagogues: for the Prie&s;ts were not admitted by Solemn Ordination; but judged of their fitne&s;s, as to birth and body by the &s;ame ordination: but the Rulers of the Syna|gogues were admitted by Ordination: and if any of the Prie&s;ts came to that Office, they as well as others had their peculiar de&s;ignation and appointment to it.</Q> Here I reply. 1. I believe that Go&s;pel-Mini&s;ters did not properly &s;ucceed
<PB N="128" REF="66">to either of the&s;e; but &s;tand upon another foundation, <HI>viz.</HI> Chri&s;ts In&s;titution: and &s;o it is needle&s;s to enquire which of them they &s;hould &s;ucceed to. I yield al&s;o, that the name of Prie&s;ts under the Go&s;pel hath brought in the thing it &s;elf, and even the Ma&s;s: which ought not to be. 2. What can he de&s;ign by this Di&s;cour&s;e? Would he make the Office of the Mini&s;try &s;tand on no other bottom but imitation of the Synagogues Rulers; and the&s;e Rulers to be brought in by a confederate Di&s;cipline, <HI>i. e.</HI> to be a humane invention? If he &s;ay not this, he &s;aith nothing to the purpo&s;e; but I hope he will not &s;ay it. 3. It is fal&s;e, that the Prie&s;ts were not &s;olemnly &s;et apart for their Office; though they had it by birth, yet they behoved to be &s;olemnly initiated to it; and I am &s;ure Mr. <HI>Still.</HI> would not have &s;aid, that they were no otherwi&s;e &s;et apart but by the judgment of the <HI>Sanhedrim,</HI> of their birth and body; if he had not in this &s;o con&s;ulted Antiquity, as that he forgot to look into the Bible. I do not deny but there was &s;uch a Judgment to pa&s;s on them, (neither ought Mini&s;ters be now admitted without tryal) yea the Scripture (which is &s;urer than the <HI>Talmud</HI>) tel|leth us &s;o much. <HI>Ezr.</HI> 2.62, 63. Yet we find al&s;o their &s;o|lemn &s;etting apart to the Office de&s;cribed, <HI>Exod.</HI> 28.41. and 29.1. <HI>Lev.</HI> 8.2, &amp;c. And &s;poken of, 2 <HI>Chron.</HI> 26.18. Yea the very Idol-Prie&s;ts would not want this &s;olemn &s;etting a|part, 2 <HI>Chron.</HI> 13, 9. <HI>Jud.</HI> 17.5, 12. Yea, our Authors opi|nion everteth it &s;elf; for to what purpo&s;e was a publick judging of them before their entry on the exerci&s;e of their Office, if there was no &s;olemn admi&s;&s;ion of them to it; &s;ure a &s;olemn declaring them &s;uch as God had appointed his Prie&s;ts to be (if there had been no more, they being kept from exerci&s;ing the Office till this was done) was a &s;olemn admi&s;&s;ion. 4. I would know who the&s;e others were who were Rulers of the Synagogue, and &s;o Teachers of the people; at lea&s;t Superintenders over Gods publick Wor&s;hip (as he el&s;where phra&s;eth it) be&s;ide the Prie&s;ts? if they were only Levites, or others al&s;o, as he &s;eemeth to imply: and if any other but Prie&s;ts and Levites were ad|mitted to that Office, I would know <HI>quo warranto:</HI> &s;ure
<PB N="129" REF="66">the Scripture &s;peaketh of the&s;e as old Te&s;tament-Teachers, <HI>Neh.</HI> 8.9. 2 <HI>Chron.</HI> 17.8, 9. and of none el&s;e, but immediate|ly in&s;pired Prophets. But I &s;ee Mr. <HI>Stilling.</HI> looketh more to Rabinical &s;tories in the&s;e matters, than to the Bible: and to the cu&s;toms of the Synagogue in the days of the Apo|&s;tacy than to the commands of God, as he gave them, though they be rare who are made mad by too much Learn|ing; yet there are whom too much reading (without hold|ing to the Scripture as the Rule) maketh to dote. I need not in&s;i&s;t on what he writeth, <HI>p.</HI> 268, &amp;c. of the Rite of laying on of Hands; enough hath been &s;aid, to &s;hew that it proveth not what he intendeth: nor on the per&s;ons or|daining in the Synagogue and in the Church; of which he, <HI>pa.</HI> 272, &amp;c. for in both he confe&s;&s;eth abomination to have been done in common by tho&s;e in Power; and after|ward without divine Warrant re&s;trained to one: if Chri&s;t hath given power to all Presbyters to do it; we mu&s;t have &s;ome warrant to re&s;train this Power ere we dare do it; but of this enough before.</P>
<P><HI>Sect.</HI> 9. In his further pro&s;ecuting the corre&s;pondence of the Apo&s;tolick Church with the Synagogue: he &s;peaketh <HI>p.</HI> 285. of the Order &s;etled by the Apo&s;tles in the Churches planted by them, for ruling of them: and fir&s;t he maketh a work about the name <GAP DESC="foreign">, which is the &s;ame with <GAP DESC="foreign"> u&s;ed in the Synagogue; but from his own Di&s;|cour&s;e it's clear how little weight is to be laid on this con&s;i|deration, as to what he intendeth: &s;eeing that name was ever u&s;ed to denote Power and Dignity, whether in Church or State, and &s;o doth no more belong to the Synagogue than other things. I take notice of what he &s;aith in the end of <HI>p.</HI> 286. If his de&s;ign is not to di&s;pute the Argu|ments of of either party, (<HI>viz.</HI> tho&s;e who conceive the A|po&s;tles &s;etled the Government of the Church in ab&s;olute purity, or el&s;e by Superiority and &s;ubordination among the &s;etled Officers of the Church) but to lay down the&s;e prin|ciples, which may equally concern both, in order to ac|commodation. But I humbly conceive, it was very in|cumbent upon him to an&s;wer the arguments of both par|ties:
<PB N="130" REF="67">and they mu&s;t be an&s;wered to us before we be obli|ged to receive his Doctrine (of which anon) that we cannot know what form the Apo&s;tles &s;etled, and that they &s;etled not any one form. For as long as arguments brought by either of the controverting parties do &s;tand untaken a|way; to prove that the Apo&s;tles &s;etled this or that form: the Judgment can never acquie&s;ce in his opinion, that they &s;etled none; or that we cannot know what they &s;etled. This is a &s;trange way of di&s;puting, e&s;pecially when the de|&s;ign is to &s;atisfie the Con&s;cience in order to peace, and yielding up its opinion: to lay down &s;uch Principles to this end, with &s;trong arguments &s;tanding again&s;t them, un|touched or an&s;wered. 'Tis like Mr. <HI>Stilling.</HI> thinketh that when he hath furni&s;hed Men with &s;ome probabilities, that may encourage them to comply with what Government &s;hall be &s;et up in the Church; their intere&s;t and mainte|nance &s;hould re&s;i&s;t the &s;trength of all arguments again&s;t it: for he will furni&s;h them with no help in this; but they mu&s;t have very pliable Con&s;ciences, if Will be furni&s;hed to an opinion &s;o maintained. His Principles in order to ac|commodation, or all that he will &s;ay of the Apo&s;tles Go|vernment, he draweth into 3 Propo&s;itions, <HI>p.</HI> 287. which in &s;um are the&s;e: <Q>That we cannot know what was the Apo&s;tles practice: that it was not always the &s;ame: that whatever it was, we are not obliged to ob&s;erve it. Let us hear how he maketh the&s;e out.</Q></P>
<P><HI>Sect.</HI> 10. His fir&s;t Propo&s;ition he &s;etteth down thus: <Q>That we cannot arrive to &s;uch an ab&s;olute certainty what cour&s;e the Apo&s;tles took in governing Churches, as to infer from thence the only divine Right of that one form which the &s;everal parties imagine come neare&s;t to it.</Q> This Pro|po&s;ition is not &s;o ingenuou&s;ly nor clearly &s;et down as need were; wherefore I &s;hall a little remove the mi&s;t ca&s;t on the Truth by his words, which may make &s;imple Souls mi&s;take it. And 1. There is &s;ome ambiguity in <HI>[ab&s;olute certainty]</HI> if he mean &s;o much certainty as amounteth to Plerophory, and doth di&s;pell all degrees of darkne&s;s and doubting, this we a&s;&s;ert, not that every one may attain (&s;uch is the dark|ne&s;s
<PB N="131" REF="67">of Mens minds (neither is it needful to this that we look upon what the Apo&s;tles did, as being <HI>juris divini.</HI> If we mean, &s;o much certainty as doth incline the mind to the one part, and not leave it in &s;u&s;pence: we a&s;&s;ert, that this may be attained in reference to what is in Que&s;tion. 2. The matter in debate, is very ob&s;curely, if not fraudu|lently expre&s;&s;ed by the&s;e words <HI>[what cour&s;e the Apo&s;tles took in governing Churches]</HI> the Que&s;tion is not, whether we can know every thing that they did in this, (for many par|ticulars are comprehended in this general expre&s;&s;ion) but whether we can know if the &s;etled Presbyters acting in Pa|rity, or Bi&s;hops acting with authority over Presbyters, as the ordinary Officers of the Church. 3. It is not fair deal|ing to imply (as this Propo&s;ition doth) that we infer the only divine Right of one form from bare Apo&s;tolical pra|ctice: he knows that we walk upon other grounds, <HI>viz.</HI> we take Chri&s;ts command of imitating the Apo&s;tles: the Pari|ty between our ca&s;e and theirs, which may make the mo|rality of our practice to be the &s;ame with theirs. 4. It is not the one form which &s;everal parties imagine to come neare&s;t to Apo&s;tolical practice: but that which is proved to be really the &s;ame with it, we plead for: it's not mans ima|ginations, but Scriptural grounds which we e&s;tabli&s;h that corre&s;pondency upon, we are a&s;&s;erting between Apo&s;tolical practice, and what we would have to be now in the Church. The antithe&s;is then which we maintain again&s;t this his Pro|po&s;ition, is this, <Q>That they who &s;earch the Scripture may come to be &s;atisfied on good grounds, whether the Apo|&s;tles in planting Churches did &s;etle Presbyters acting in Pa|rity, or Bi&s;hops ruling over Presbyters as their ordinary Of|ficers: &s;o as they may (con&s;idering the duty laid on us to follow them, and the parity of our ca&s;e with theirs) infer the divine Right of that one Form (of the&s;e two) which was u&s;ed by the Apo&s;tles.</Q> For proof of this our antithe&s;is I refer to the con&s;ideration laid down, <HI>p.</HI> 184, 185. about the perfection of Scripture-hi&s;tory, and its de&s;ign to in&s;truct us in this point: which doth &s;o far prevail with me, that I look upon the Authors Propo&s;ition as &s;uch a reflexion on
<PB N="132" REF="68">Scripture, that any but a Papi&s;t may be a&s;hamed of. To this I add, that the arguments brought for Presbyterial Go|vernment by the A&s;&s;ertors of it, do evidently de&s;troy the Authors Propo&s;ition, and do e&s;tabli&s;h our Antithe&s;is: which &s;eeing he doth not intend nor endeavour to an&s;wer, we need not in&s;i&s;t upon. A further confirmation of our Antithe&s;is, &s;hall be to take off the arguments that he hath brought for his Propo&s;ition, which I now come to.</P>
<P><HI>Sect.</HI> 11. His fir&s;t argument is, <HI>p.</HI> 287. from the equiva|lency of the names and doubtfulne&s;s of their &s;ignifica|tion, from which the form of Government u&s;ed in the new Te&s;tament, &s;hould be determined. He &s;aith, That it is <Q>hotly pleaded on both &s;ides, that the form of Government mu&s;t be derived from the importance of the names [<HI>Bi&s;hop</HI> and <HI>Presbyter</HI>]</Q> and that there can be no way to come to a determination what the certain &s;en&s;e of the&s;e names is in Scripture. He maketh out the uncertainty, by laying down four opinions about the &s;ignification of the&s;e names: and from this variety of interpretation, inferreth that we cannot know what &s;en&s;e they are to be taken in. <HI>An&s;.</HI> 1. when he &s;aith that it is pleaded on both &s;ides, that the form of Government mu&s;t be derived from the names of Bi&s;hop and Presbyter; this is a mi&s;repre&s;entation; for 1. There be arguments from which it might well be derived, though the&s;e names &s;hould never be mentioned. 2. When we di&s;|pute from the&s;e Names, it is not from the bare force of the word; but from this, that the Scripture doth often apply the&s;e names to the &s;ame thing, never to divers Officers in the Church: and therefore, there is no ground for a&s;&s;erting the difference of Bi&s;hop and Presbyter. This is a &s;urer ar|gument, than what can be drawn from the importance of Names. <HI>An&s;w.</HI> 2. It is mo&s;t fal&s;e and injurious to the Spirit of God &s;peaking in his word, to &s;ay, that there can be no way to determine what is the certain &s;en&s;e of the&s;e names in Scripture. We mu&s;t then &s;ay, that the Spirit of God &s;peaketh that which cannot be under&s;tood, if he u&s;e names and words to expre&s;s &s;ome thing to us, and it is impo&s;&s;ible to know what is meant by them. When we hear of Bi|&s;hops
<PB N="133" REF="68">and Presbyters in any place of Scripture; either we mu&s;t &s;ay, that the&s;e words &s;ignifie nothing, or that they mean &s;omewhat, but no man can know what it is, or that we may come to know what is meant by them. The for|mer two are foul reflexions on the Author of holy Scrip|ture: yea, it were a reflexion on a Man to &s;peak or write (in a Book de&s;igned for in&s;truction) that which either hath no meaning, or &s;uch as cannot be known. The 3d, con|tradicteth our Authors A&s;&s;ertion. His proof of the uncer|tainty of the &s;ignification of the&s;e Names, we have met with before in the like ca&s;e: it is a mo&s;t unhappy and incon&s;e|quential rea&s;on; Men have divers ways under&s;tood the&s;e words of the Holy Gho&s;t, <HI>Ergo,</HI> they cannot be under&s;tood at all. They mu&s;t have a meaning, and it is our duty to &s;earch it out, however Men differ about it. There are bet|ter Rea&s;ons brought by Presbyterians, to prove that the&s;e two Names &s;ignifie the &s;ame thing; which was incumbent on this Author to an&s;wer, and not to &s;hift the matter with &s;ay|ing, that other Men think otherwi&s;e. I &s;hall give but this in&s;tance, or hint, which may &s;atisfie any what is the meaning of the&s;e words in Scripture. <HI>Tit.</HI> 2. The Apo&s;tle leaveth in <HI>Crete Titus</HI> to ordain Elders or Presbyters, <HI>ver&s;e</HI> 5. and tel|leth him how they mu&s;t be qualified, <HI>ver&s;e</HI> 6 and giveth this rea&s;on, why they mu&s;t have &s;uch qualifications, <HI>ver&s;e</HI> 7. for a Bi&s;hop mu&s;t be blamele&s;s: If a Bi&s;hop were another thing than a Presbyter, to what purpo&s;e were this rea&s;on here brought? <HI>Ergo,</HI> they are one and the &s;ame thing. And if any affirm, that the&s;e words &s;ignifie different things in any place of Scripture, let him prove it, and we &s;hall yield the cau&s;e. I might al&s;o &s;hew, that the &s;ame Office and work is every where in Scripture laid on both the&s;e; and that ne|ver any thing is given to the one, but what is given to the other: but this hath been done, and other arguments ma|naged fully by our Writers again&s;t Epi&s;copacy; neither hath Mr. <HI>Stilling.</HI> had the confidence to an&s;wer them, though de|&s;troying this his A&s;&s;ertion, and therefore I &s;hall &s;uper&s;ede this labour. For the name of <HI>[Angels of the Churches]</HI> the argument brought from it is not ours, but our oppo&s;ites.</P>
<PB N="134" REF="69">
<P><HI>Sect.</HI> 12. His 2d. Argument for the uncertainty of A|po&s;tolical practice, <HI>p.</HI> 290. is, <Q>That the places of Scripture mo&s;t in controver&s;ie about the form of Government, may be without any incongruity under&s;tood of either of the different Forms,</Q> which he maketh out by going through the &s;everal places. The fir&s;t is, <HI>Acts</HI> 11.30. where it is &s;aid, <Q>That the relief for the Brethren of <HI>Judea</HI> was &s;ent to the Elders. There is nothing here, &s;aith he, to &s;hew whe|ther there were the local Elders of <HI>Jeru&s;alem,</HI> or the Bi|&s;hops of the &s;everal Churches of <HI>Judea.</HI></Q> <HI>An&s;w.</HI> I won|der why he &s;hould have brought this as the fir&s;t, or as one of the&s;e few Scriptures that he undertaketh to an&s;wer, (for, the mo&s;t part of the mo&s;t pungent Scriptures again&s;t his de&s;ign, he doth not &s;o much as mention) for, I think, it is very little in&s;i&s;ted on by either party: nor can I re|member that I have met with it; as brought to prove either Parity or imparity. Yet I do not doubt but at lea&s;t &s;ome probability may be hence brought, that the Apo&s;tolick Churches were governed by the Parity of Elders; for which I lay down briefly the&s;e grounds, Fir&s;t, The Elders here &s;poken of, are the Governors of the Church; this he doth not deny. 2dly, They were the Governors of the Church of <HI>Jeru&s;alem.</HI> This he &s;aith, is not &s;ure; for they might be the Bi&s;hops of the Churches of <HI>Judea.</HI> But again&s;t this I argue; 1. It is not enough to &s;ay, they might be; but what ground is there to think that they were the Bi&s;hops of <HI>Judea,</HI> we bring probable grounds for what we a&s;&s;ert; but what can be &s;aid for the contrary? It is a bold way of expounding Scri|ture, to &s;ay &s;uch a &s;en&s;e it may have when there is no ground to think that it hath &s;uch a &s;en&s;e; but &s;ome ground to the contrary. 2. However, the Relief ought to be &s;ent to all the Churches of <HI>Judea,</HI> yet it is delivered at <HI>Jeru&s;a|lem</HI> to be &s;ent abroad: for it is delivered to the&s;e Elders by <HI>Barnabas</HI> and <HI>Paul;</HI> whom it is not like they &s;ent through the &s;everal Churches of <HI>Judea:</HI> 'tis &s;poken of as one &s;ingle act of theirs, delivering the others to a company of Elders met together. Now it is not imaginable, that all the Bi|&s;hops of <HI>Judea</HI> were met together on this occa&s;ion: for
<PB N="135" REF="69">what needed &s;uch a Convention for receiving Alms? Yea, we have no ground to think that it was &s;o natural to them before-hand, as that they could meet about it. Neither hath that conceit of &s;ome, any probability; that the&s;e Bi&s;hops did re&s;ide at <HI>Jeru&s;alem:</HI> &s;uch Men did not begin &s;o &s;oon to &s;light their particular Charge, but of this after; The&s;e El|ders then were the Elders of <HI>Jeru&s;alem.</HI> 3. We find a com|pany of Elders ordinarily at <HI>Jeru&s;alem,</HI> not only <HI>Acts</HI> 15.6. Which might be upon the &s;olemn occa&s;ion of the Council; but <HI>Act.</HI> 21.18. That the&s;e were the Elders of <HI>Judea,</HI> come up with their flocks to keep the Fea&s;t of <HI>Penteco&s;t</HI> (as Mr. <HI>Still.</HI> gue&s;&s;eth) is a mo&s;t irrational conceit: for though many of the <HI>Jews</HI> were zealous of the Law; &s;hall we think that the Apo&s;tles had &s;et Teachers over them, who were no better in&s;tructed in the Go&s;pel than &s;o? And be&s;ides, the&s;e belie|ving <HI>Jews, ver.</HI> 20 who are &s;aid to be zealous of the Law, can neither be proved to have been then pre&s;ent at <HI>Jeru&s;a|lem;</HI> for they might hear of <HI>Paul</HI>'s conde&s;cendency to their Cu&s;toms, though they were not there: neither that they were tho&s;e of the Country of <HI>Judea;</HI> they might be of <HI>Je|ru&s;alem</HI> it &s;elf: but I incline rather to the fir&s;t. Now we find not any other company of all the Elders of <HI>Judea</HI> met in one place: the&s;e were then the Elders of <HI>Jeru&s;alem.</HI> 4. It is then ob&s;erved, both by the ordinary glo&s;s, and by <HI>Lyra</HI> in <HI>loc.</HI> That this famine was mainly like to be in <HI>Jeru&s;alem:</HI> the Believers there being &s;poiled of their movable goods in the per&s;ecution about <HI>Stephen;</HI> and therefore this Relief was chiefly to them: <HI>Ergo,</HI> they are the Elders of <HI>Jeru&s;a|lem,</HI> which here received it. Now from the&s;e grounds it ea&s;ily followeth what we intend, <HI>viz.</HI> If there was a compa|ny of Elders who were Rulers of the Church at <HI>Jeru&s;alem:</HI> then this Church (of the re&s;t there is the &s;ame rea&s;on) was not governed by a Bi&s;hop, but by Presbyters acting in Pa|rity. It is &s;trange, if the Elders of the Church &s;hould be &s;poken of, and no notice taken of My Lord Bi&s;hop (if there were any &s;uch per&s;on) in &s;uch a matter.</P>
<P><HI>Sect.</HI> 13. The <HI>2d</HI> place is <HI>Act.</HI> 14.23, <Q>when they had ordained them Elders in every Church, to which he join|eth
<PB N="136" REF="70">the <HI>3d, Tit.</HI> 1.5. that thou &s;houlde&s;t ordain Elders in every City. Of which places he &s;aith that <GAP DESC="foreign"> and <GAP DESC="foreign"> &s;ignifie no more but <HI>Eccle&s;iatim</HI> and <HI>oppidatim;</HI> &s;o that the places may well be under&s;tood of ordaining one Elder in every Church and City or of more, but doth not determine whether one or more were ordained in them.</Q> But granting all that he alledgeth, a &s;trong Argument for our purpo&s;e may be brought from the&s;e places, thus: there was at lea&s;t in every Church one Elder, in the Apo&s;tles times, and &s;uch an Elder as was al&s;o a Bi&s;hop and had governing Power over the Church, as ap|peareth by comparing <HI>ver&s;.</HI> 7. of <HI>Tit.</HI> 2. with this <HI>ver&s;</HI> 5. But there could not be in every Church a Dioce&s;an Bi&s;hop ruling over Presbyters: for one of the&s;e are over many Churches, <HI>Ergo.</HI> The Church was then governed by the Elders of the &s;everal Churches acting in Parity: for if eve|ry Church had its Elder, or Elders, and the&s;e all were Ru|lers, then the Rule was not in the hand of one Superiour over many Churches. Nothing can be que&s;tioned in this Argument, except it be &s;aid that every Church here is not every congregational but Dioce&s;an Church. But this can in no wi&s;e be, for there was a nece&s;&s;ity of an Elder or El|ders in every Congregational Church for the Peoples In|&s;truction: if the&s;e then did rule, the Church was ruled by the Elders of Congregational Churches. <Q>The next place is <HI>Act</HI> 20.17. And from <HI>Miletus Paul</HI> &s;ent and called the Elders of the Church.</Q> The&s;e, &s;ay we, were Elders of the Church of <HI>Ephe&s;us,</HI> to whom in common <HI>Paul</HI> commit|teth the ruling of the Church, <HI>ver&s;.</HI> 28. not to one Bi&s;hop over the re&s;t, &s;o that Church was governed by Parity of Elders. To this place he an&s;wereth by &s;hewing &s;ome Proba|bilities for both meanings <HI>viz.</HI> That the&s;e were the Elders of <HI>Ephe&s;us;</HI> and that they were the Bi&s;hops of <HI>A&s;ia:</HI> but taketh no pains to An&s;wer what is &s;aid on either hand, only concludeth, that becau&s;e there is probability on both hands there is no fixed truth on either; which is mo&s;t dete&s;table Sceptici&s;m: for if there be Arguments for both parts, &s;ure
<PB N="137" REF="70">both cannot be true, &s;eeing they are contradictory, neither can both be fal&s;e for the &s;ame rea&s;on, for <HI>contradictoriarum altera &s;emper e&s;t vera, altera &s;emper e&s;t fal&s;a:</HI> then it was his part either to &s;hew that neither of the arguments prove any thing, by an&s;wering to them, or to hold to the one as true, and not to hang between two. But I prove that the&s;e Elders were the Elders of <HI>Ephe&s;us,</HI> not the Bi&s;hops of <HI>A&s;ia.</HI> 1. (which Argument he mentioneth but he an&s;wereth not) the Article in the <HI>Greek</HI> maketh it clear, it being demon&s;trato|ry doth apply his Speech to the Church which he had men|tioned in particular: where when it's &s;aid that he &s;ent to <HI>Ephe&s;us</HI> and called for the Elders, <GAP DESC="foreign"> it might well be tran&s;lated [of that Church:] it pointeth out that Church and no other. It is an unheard of way of &s;peaking when a particular thing or per&s;on is mentioned, and the demon&s;trative Article joined to it, that that Speech &s;hould be under&s;tood of any other but that. 2. <HI>Paul</HI> &s;ent to <HI>Ephe|&s;us</HI> for the&s;e Elders, not through the &s;everal parts of <HI>A&s;ia. Ergo.</HI> They were at <HI>Ephe&s;us</HI> not in other Churches. That he did not &s;end through other places to gather them toge|ther is evident both becau&s;e the Text mentioneth &s;ending to <HI>Ephe&s;us,</HI> not other places; and it is &s;trange if he &s;ent through all <HI>A&s;ia</HI> and mention be only made of &s;ending to one place not to any other: al&s;o becau&s;e <HI>Paul</HI> was then in ha&s;t pa&s;&s;ing by them <HI>ver&s;.</HI> 16. wherefore 'tis not like that he could &s;tay for the convening of a Synod of Bi&s;hop; from many remote parts. That which is alledged by &s;ome, that the Bi&s;hops of <HI>A&s;ia</HI> did re&s;ide at <HI>Ephe&s;us,</HI> and thence were &s;ent for by <HI>Paul,</HI> is mo&s;t ab&s;urd; for 1. There is not the lea&s;t &s;haddow of rea&s;on to think that non re&s;idence of fixed Officers did &s;o &s;oon creep into the Church. Let us &s;ee any In&s;tance or Warrant to think that any who had a fix|ed charge did leave it long, or often, or at all, but upon &s;ome weighty and extraordinary emergent. 2. What could be their bu&s;ine&s;s at <HI>Ephe&s;us:</HI> their work lay el&s;ewhere, and there they could do nothing except to meet and con&s;ult about matters of common concerment: which will not in|fer ordinary re&s;idence there. 3. The work of the&s;e Elders
<PB N="138" REF="71">was particular in&s;pection over their Flocks; ver&s;. 28. [over all the Flock] which they could not have if they re&s;ided at <HI>Ephe&s;us,</HI> and had their charges lying up and down <HI>A&s;ia,</HI> for that probability which he bringeth for the contrary, it is none at all, <HI>viz.</HI> <Q>It is &s;aid <HI>ver&s;.</HI> 18. That he had been with them at all Sea&s;ons; but he was not all the time in <HI>Ephe&s;us,</HI> but abroad in <HI>A&s;ia</HI> as <HI>Act.</HI> 19.10, 22, 26.</Q> <HI>An&s;w.</HI> [at all Sea|&s;ons] mu&s;t not be taken in &s;uch rigour as if he had never &s;tirr'd a Foot out of <HI>Ephe&s;us;</HI> but that he had his re&s;idence and Preached mo&s;t there, which is evident from <HI>Act.</HI> 19.1, 9.10. he di&s;puted daily in the School of <HI>Tyrannus;</HI> this was at <HI>Ephe&s;us:</HI> and it is &s;aid that it continued 2 years, <HI>i. e.</HI> for the mo&s;t part of the time he was there, and yet might &s;ometimes Preach el&s;ewhere. For the humane Te&s;timonies he bringeth for either part, I were then in the &s;ame ballance with him and &s;hall be content to lay no &s;tre&s;s upon them. As for the 1 <HI>Tim.</HI> 3.1. which is his other place, we make no Argument from it, but maintain that it &s;peaketh not of a Dioce&s;an Bi&s;hop: let them who a&s;&s;ert the contrary prove it. <Q>His di&s;cour&s;e <HI>p.</HI> 293. is a very un&s;avory comparing of &s;ome Philo&s;ophical Problems which cannot well be de|termined (and therefore we may he&s;itate about them)</Q> with points of truth revealed in Scripture; as if we might al&s;o be Sceptick in the&s;e. But &s;ure the Compari&s;on is mi&s;era|bly lame, for 1. The&s;e do not concerne our Faith or duty as the&s;e other do, and therefore there is much le&s;s hazard in Scepticr&s;m about the one than the other. 2. Even in tho&s;e points the motion of the Earth or Heaven, the Flux and Reflux of the Sea, there is &s;ome truth in them, though men through darkne&s;s cannot &s;ee it: neither mu&s;t we &s;ay that nothing there is, becau&s;e there is nothing certain to us in the&s;e things; or that men may impo&s;e on our belief what they plea&s;e in them: hence men are the more &s;tudi|ous in &s;earching out the&s;e Secrets and give them not over as being de&s;titute of all objective truth. But he dealeth wor&s;e with the things of Church-Government; he will have no objective truth in it, and no duty to lye on us in &s;earching out the truth, but that we mu&s;t believe what men
<PB N="139" REF="71">&s;ay of it. For conclu&s;ion of what I would &s;ay to this ground of his Sceptici&s;m about Church-Government, I will but mention &s;everal Scriptures, on which the truth in this is built <HI>viz.</HI> That the Apo&s;tolick form was parity, which Mr. <HI>Still.</HI> hath not &s;o much as touched: neither need I in&s;i&s;t on them, &s;eeing Arguments from them are e&s;tabli&s;hed by our writers, and not enervated by him. One place is 1 <HI>Tim.</HI> 4.14. where <HI>Tim.</HI> is &s;aid to be ordained by a Presby|tery or company of Elders joyning with <HI>Paul</HI> in that Acti|on: this could not have been if Elders had not had a Parity of Power. Another is, 1 <HI>Cor.</HI> 5.4, 5. where excommuni|cation is tran&s;acted by the Authority of a Community, not of a &s;ingle Per&s;on: and &s;o is the relaxing of that Sentence 2 <HI>Cor.</HI> 2.8.10. Al&s;o 1 <HI>The&s;&s;.</HI> 5.12. They who ruled that Church, who were over them, and mu&s;t be obeyed, were ma|ny; not one Per&s;on: yea that work and the work of la|bouring among the People and admoni&s;hing them are made to be the bu&s;ine&s;s of the &s;ame Per&s;ons; which is a demon|&s;tration that the Presbyters of that Church did rule in com|mon and not a Bi&s;hop over them. <HI>Heb.</HI> 13.7, 17. proveth al&s;o the &s;ame thing mo&s;t clearly. Other places might be brought, but the&s;e In&s;tances may &s;hew that Mr. <HI>Stilling.</HI> un|dertaking to &s;hew that no place in Scripture determineth what was the Form of Government in the Apo&s;tolick Church, doth not touch the mo&s;t con&s;iderable places com|monly brought to that purpo&s;e: but hath mentioned a few, and tho&s;e which are lea&s;t in&s;i&s;ted on by them whom he oppo|&s;eth; and even to them he hath &s;aid nothing to &s;care any from u&s;ing them as Arguments afterward. His third Ar|gument for the uncertainty of the Primitive or Apo&s;toli|cal Form of Government, taken from the in&s;ufficiency of the Te&s;timony of Antiquity, is this; I pa&s;s it, becau&s;e we have ground enough for the certainty of it from Scripture, and what he &s;aith proveth no more but that antiquity is not &s;ufficient to bear witne&s;s to it: al&s;o becau&s;e ali or mo&s;t that he there di&s;cour&s;eth proveth that it cannot be gathered from ancient records that Epi&s;copacy was the Apo&s;tolical form, which we willingly yield.</P>
<PB N="140" REF="72">
<P><HI>Sect.</HI> 14. I come then to his <HI>2d</HI> propo&s;ition mentioned before, which he layeth down <HI>p.</HI> 322. Thus, <Q>That the Apo&s;tles in probability did not ob&s;erve any one fixed cour&s;e of &s;etling the Government of Churches; but &s;ettled it according to the &s;everal circum&s;tances of places and Per|&s;ons which they had to deal with.</Q> This a&s;&s;ertion he lay|eth down <HI>ex abundanti,</HI> not as a Foundation of his opini|on but a doctrine of probability, which may tend to com|po&s;e differences about Church-Government. To clear our way in this di&s;pute with him, let it be ob&s;erved, 1. That the que&s;tion being only about Parity and Imparity of Pa&s;tors, all other differencies in Apo&s;tolick practices that may be alledged are impertinent to this purpo&s;e. 2. It helpeth not him, nor harmeth our cau&s;e, if we &s;hould grant, that the Apo&s;tles did in &s;ome extraordinary ca&s;es vary from their ordinary cour&s;e: for it is what they did ordinarily, and where no extraordinary cau&s;e moved them to do otherwi&s;e, that we inquire about. 3. Our que&s;tion is not about the Government of the Church that was for a time exerci&s;ed by extraordinary Officers immediately &s;ent of God: but what was the way the Apo&s;tles &s;ettled that the Church &s;hould be governed in by her Ordinary and abiding Offi|cers. Wherefore it maketh nothing for his purpo&s;e if it be made out that the Church was &s;ome times governed one way by extraordinary Officers, at other times or places another way by ordinary Officers. Taking the&s;e con&s;ide|rations along with us, I come to hear the Proofs of this his propo&s;ition. The fir&s;t is taken <HI>p.</HI> 323. from the different &s;tate, condition and quantity of the Churches planted by the Apo&s;tles, and here he premi&s;eth 3 things, <HI>viz.</HI> <Q>That God did not give the Apo&s;tles equal &s;ucee&s;s of their Labours in all places, that a &s;mall number of believers did not re|quire the &s;ame number of Officers to Teach and Govern them that a greater Church did. 3. That the Apo&s;tles did &s;ettle Church-Officers according to the probability of in|crea&s;e of Believers, and in order thereto, in &s;ome great pla|ces.</Q> About the&s;e I &s;hall not controvert with him; only the <HI>2d</HI> mu&s;t be under&s;tood with this di&s;tinction, el&s;e we can|not
<PB N="141" REF="72">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 &s;orts of Officers; and the rea&s;on is becau&s;e all tho&s;e acts are needful to be done to them which mu&s;t be done to greater Congregations: they mu&s;t be taught, ru|led, and their Poor cared for; and therefore they mu&s;t not want any of the&s;e &s;orts of Officers who&s;e work the&s;e acts were: I mean where &s;uch Officers could be had: for Chri&s;ts In&s;titutions tye not to impo&s;&s;ibilities. From the&s;e Premi&s;&s;es he inferreth the&s;e two conclu&s;ions to make out his propo&s;iti|on; the fir&s;t is <HI>p.</HI> 325. <Q>That in Churches con&s;i&s;ting of a &s;mall number of believers where there was no great probabili|ty of Increa&s;e afterwards, one &s;ingle Pa&s;tor with Deacons under him were only con&s;tituted by the Apo&s;tles for the ruling of the&s;e Churches.</Q> On this conclu&s;ion (before I come to his Proofs of it) I &s;hall make the&s;e remarques. 1. Here is nothing here for the Imparity of Presbyters, or the Autho|rity of a Bi&s;hop over Presbyters; if where more Presbyters could not be had, one was to do the work, this doth not at all &s;ay that the Apo&s;tles ever did, or that we may &s;et one over the re&s;t, where many may be had to rule the Church. This conclu&s;ion then proveth nothing. 2. The&s;e Deacons that here he &s;peaketh of either had ruling power or not: if he &s;ay the fir&s;t I doubt, if he can prove that ever any &s;uch Deacons were in the Apo&s;tolick Churches, where the Deacons work was to &s;erve, 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 &s;ame Per|&s;ons for want of men to exerci&s;e them di&s;tinctly; which maketh nothing again&s;t Presbyterians. If the &s;econd, fir&s;t I que&s;tion if any in&s;tance can be given of a Church &s;o con|&s;tituted by the Apo&s;tles. 2. If it was &s;o, it was nece&s;&s;ity, not choice that made them be without ruling Elders.</P>
<P><HI>Sect.</HI> 15. But how proveth he this his conclu&s;ion? by 3 or 4 Te&s;timonies out of Clement, <HI>Epiph.</HI> and others. What? hath he &s;o &s;oon forgot him&s;elf? he had immediately be|fore &s;pent about 30 pages in proving that the Te&s;timony
<PB N="142" REF="73">of the Fathers is not &s;ufficient to prove what was the A|po&s;tles Practice; and that by making out the defectivene&s;s ambiguity, partiality and repugnancy of the Records of the &s;ucceeding Ages: it is &s;trange then that to prove this his a&s;|&s;ertion concerning Apo&s;tolick Practice, he &s;hould bring no other Argument at all but &s;uch as he had &s;et that <HI>Nigrum Theta</HI> upon. Neither &s;ee I what tho&s;e Te&s;timonies prove contrary to us. The Te&s;timony of <HI>Clement</HI> &s;aith no more than what is implyed, <HI>Phil.</HI> 1.1. That the Apo&s;tles ordain|ed Bi&s;hops and Deacons: and our Author him&s;elf maintain|eth that tho&s;e were not by their con&s;titution any more than Presbyters: whatever they might after get by mens In&s;titu|tion proveth not what was Apo&s;tolick con&s;titution. For the Te&s;timony of <HI>Epiphanius</HI> he confe&s;&s;eth its intricacie and ob&s;curity, 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 &s;peak this, in &s;um: <Q>that at fir&s;t there were only Bi&s;hops and Deacons (by Bi&s;hops he meaneth Presbyters, as appears from his Subjoyning immediately that there was neceility for Pres|byters and Deacons) and that by the&s;e all Eccle&s;ia&s;tical Offices might be performed: but afterward where there was need and there were found any worthy of it, there was a Bi&s;hop appointed: but where there were not many to be Presbyters; they were content with a Bi&s;hop and Deacons.</Q> Here are 3 ca&s;es; Presbyters and Deacons; a Bi&s;hop and Deacons; this in ca&s;e of nece&s;&s;ity where more Presbyters could not be had: this Bi&s;hop, as hath been &s;hewn before, could be nothing above a Presbyter; none of tho&s;e cro&s;s our de&s;ign: for the third, <HI>viz.</HI> a Bi&s;hop &s;et over Presbyters, fir&s;t <HI>Epiphanius</HI> doth not &s;ay it was &s;o appoint|ed by the Apo&s;tles, but [it was done] it is like he meaneth by &s;ucceeding Ages. 2. He doth not &s;ay that this Bi&s;hop was &s;et over Presbyters with jurisdiction; he might be meerly a <HI>prae&s;es,</HI> &s;o there is nothing here to prove that the Apo&s;tles ever &s;etled any thing contrary to Parity of Pres|byters. The Te&s;timony out of <HI>Clem. Alexan.</HI> even with <HI>Salma&s;ius</HI> his commentary proveth no more but that in
<PB N="143" REF="73">&s;ome places were more Presbyters, in &s;ome fewer, in &s;ome but one. His la&s;t Te&s;timony &s;aith nothing at all to the purpo&s;e: only that the Apo&s;tles &s;ettled things by degrees, not that ever they &s;et up Bi&s;hops.</P>
<P><HI>Sect.</HI> 16. The 2d Conclu&s;ion that he inferreth, <HI>p.</HI> 332. <Q>That in Churches con&s;i&s;ting of a multitude of Believers, or where there was a probability of a great increa&s;e by preach|ing the Go&s;pel, the Apo&s;tles did &s;ettle a College of Pre&s;|byters, who&s;e Office was partly to govern the Church al|ready formed, and partly to labour in converting more.</Q> This we clo&s;e with, and from it, and the former Conclu&s;ion which make up his whole Argument, infer the quite con|trary to his de&s;ign, <HI>viz.</HI> That the Apo&s;tles kept a mo&s;t uni|form cour&s;e, (&s;o far as nece&s;&s;ity did permit) in &s;etling the Government of Churches: and that they &s;etled the Govern|ment in the hands of Presbyters acting in a Society where they could be had, and &s;ingly where more could not be: and that they never &s;etled it in the hand of a Bi&s;hop Ru|ling over Presbyters. All this is evident from what hath been &s;aid. He taketh occa&s;ion, <HI>p.</HI> 336, &amp;c. to &s;peak again&s;t the Office of Ruling-Elders in the Church: in which Di&s;pute he toucheth not any (except one Scripture) of tho&s;e argu|ments which are brought by the Defenders of that Office: which is but a &s;light way of di&s;puting again&s;t any Opinion. It is not needful to our De&s;ign to handle this Debate fully, till that be an&s;wered which is writen by the Author of the A&s;&s;ertion of the Government of the Church of <HI>Scotland:</HI> by the Author of the Treati&s;e of Ruling-Elders and Dea|cons: by the <HI>London</HI> Mini&s;ters in their <HI>jus divinum Reg. Eccle&s;.</HI> and in their Vindication of Pre&s;. Gov. by <HI>Smect.</HI> by <HI>Calv. Ju&s;t. lib.</HI> 4. <HI>c.</HI> 4. &s;ect. 8. and <HI>lib.</HI> 4. <HI>c.</HI> 11. &s;ect. 6. by <HI>Peter Martyr, Loc. com. cla&s;.</HI> 4. <HI>c.</HI> 1. <HI>num.</HI> 11. and many others. Wherefore I &s;hall only an&s;wer what this Author hath &s;aid again&s;t the Truth in this Point. Whereas among many other Scriptures proving this Office, 1 <HI>Tim.</HI> 5.17. is brought as one, there being implied there a di&s;tin|ction of Elders that Rule well, and are to be honoured with double Honour; into &s;uch as labour in the Word and
<PB N="142" REF="74"><GAP DESC="duplicate" EXTENT="1 page">
<PB N="143" REF="74"><GAP DESC="duplicate" EXTENT="1 page">
<PB N="144" REF="75">Doctrine, and another member of the di&s;tinction not ex|pre&s;&s;ed, which can be none el&s;e but Elders who rule and do not labour in the Word and Doctrine, <HI>i. e.</HI> who&s;e Office it is only to Rule, not to Teach publickly, as Pa&s;tors. Of this Scripture he pretendeth to bring a full, clear and ea&s;ie un|der&s;tanding, <HI>viz.</HI> <Q>That of the Elders that were ordained in great Churches, (who had power to di&s;charge all Pa|&s;toral acts, but did not all attend equally the &s;ame part of the work) &s;ome did mo&s;t attend the Ruling of the Flock already converted; others laboured mo&s;t in converting others by Preaching; and that according to their &s;everal abilities: now the&s;e la&s;t de&s;erved greater Honour, both becau&s;e their burthen was greater, and their &s;ufferings more.</Q> This is no new, though it be a fal&s;e interpretati|on: for the Author of <HI>A&s;&s;er. Govern. Ch.</HI> of <HI>Scotl. p.</HI> 48, 46. bringeth it as one of Dr. <HI>Fields</HI> An&s;wers to the &s;ame place: or rather two of them which by our Author are put together. But again&s;t this expo&s;ition of the Text, I thus argue: 1. This Glo&s;s &s;uppo&s;eth that there were Elders, who&s;e Office it was to Teach and to Rule: and yet they did ordinarily neglect the one part of this their work, and contented them&s;elves with doing the other. Is it imaginable that the Lord allows any Honour at all upon &s;uch? and yet the Text alloweth double Honour, even on unpreaching Elders, though the Preachers have it more e&s;pecially. This Rea&s;on is &s;trongly enforced, if we con&s;ider that Church. Power communicated by Chri&s;t to the Officers of his hou&s;e, is not only a Licence or Permi&s;&s;ion (as we noted before) but a charge of which they mu&s;t give an account: as it is &s;aid of Church-rulers <HI>Heb.</HI> 13.17. Neither do I &s;ee how any who by their Office are Preachers of the Go&s;pel, can free them&s;elves of that wherewith the Apo&s;tle chargeth him|&s;elf, 1 <HI>Cor.</HI> 9.16. Nece&s;&s;ity is laid upon me, yea wo is un|to me if I Preach not the Go&s;pel; and of that charge laid on <HI>Timothy</HI> (who was as much taken up with ruling as any) 2 <HI>Tim.</HI> 4.2. that he &s;hould Preach the word, be in&s;tant in Sea&s;on, out of Sea&s;on: May men when Chri&s;t hath put them in Office and given them a charge; choo&s;e what part
<PB N="145" REF="75">of the work of that Office and Charge they will do, and what not? But I perceive, this Man's principles lead him to &s;ubject all Chri&s;ts In&s;titutions to Mens will, to cut and carve of them as they plea&s;e: Chri&s;t hath given Pa&s;tors a charge that they &s;hould Teach and Rule his Church. He had pleaded before the Ruling-power may be taken from &s;ome, and laid on others; now he affirmeth the &s;ame of Teach|ing-power: this is intolerable boldne&s;s. 2. We have no better ground for judging of the diver&s;ity of Officers in the Church, than by con&s;idering divers &s;orts of work which &s;ome did ordinarily with the Lord's approbation, that o|thers did not, but were employed in other work. What better Note can we have to know what is a Mans Office; than his work which he is ordinarily employed in, and that with God's own approbation? Wherefore, if &s;ome Elders Preached; others preached not, but Ruled; we mu&s;t think that the&s;e were di&s;tinct Officers, and that their Office led them only to do what they did. 3. This learned Author &s;hould have brought &s;ome rea&s;on for what he alledgeth, <HI>viz.</HI> That the&s;e unpreaching Eledrs, who Ruled, had power to preach, <GAP DESC="foreign">, &s;hall not per&s;uade us of it: neither is there the lea&s;t &s;hew of warrant for &s;uch an A&s;&s;ertion. If it be &s;aid that they preached &s;ometimes, and therefore could not be without Preaching-power. <HI>An&s;w.</HI> It cannot be proved that there were any Officers in the Apo&s;tolick Church, who had Preaching power, or did &s;ometimes Preach, and yet were &s;o taken up with Ruling, that they did not ordinarily Preach. 4. We may with as much (yea the &s;ame) rea&s;on &s;ay, That every Officer in the Church had all Church-power, and might occa&s;ionally exert it; though &s;ome according to their gift did ordinarily exert one part; others, another: and that Deacons might preach, and do all the work of the Pa&s;tors, though ordinarily, being better gifted for that, they &s;erved Tables: but this is to jumble together what the Lord hath made an ordinary &s;eparation of. 5. This Opi|nion maketh the different work that Church-Officers are employed in, not to proceed from di&s;tinct Office or Power, but from different gifts, which would bring a Babel of con|fu&s;ion
<PB N="146" REF="76">into the Church; For 1. As Men think they are gift|ed, &s;o will they take up their Work; and &s;o mo&s;t will readily incline to the ea&s;ie&s;t work, and think their gift lieth that way, to the great neglect of the difficult and main bu&s;ine&s;s; and becau&s;e Ruling is &s;weet to an ambitious mind, and la|borious preaching is painful; we &s;hall have abundance of Rulers, but few Teachers. 2. By the &s;ame rea&s;on one may neglect all the parts of his work, that he may neglect one: pretending that his gift is not for this, nor for that, and that they may be done by others. If it mu&s;t be &s;aid. the Church mu&s;t appoint them their work, and not leave it to their choice. <HI>An&s;w.</HI> If the Church appoint <HI>Timothy's</HI> work to be to Rule, and exempt him from preaching or|dinarily; I &s;ee not how he differeth from the Ruling-El|ders, which this Author di&s;puteth again&s;t, notwith&s;tanding his &s;uppo&s;ed power to Preach; which to him is an idle Talent (I mean, if this be done warrantably: otherwi&s;e it is not done) e&s;pecially, if the Church give him no more power than Chri&s;t hath given to every Pa&s;tor, that is, to Rule over the flock with the equal concurrence of his fellow-Presbyters; not to rule over Presbyters by him&s;elf &s;ingly: for that they cannot give him this Power, I have before pro|ved. 6. If the Elders that preach, becau&s;e of the greatne&s;s of their work and &s;ufferings, have more honour than they who only Rule; then the Bi&s;hop being of this la&s;t &s;ort, mu&s;t be inferiour in honour to tho&s;e other Presbyters: e&s;pe|cially this mu&s;t hold in the opinion of this Author, who holdeth, That Bi&s;hop and Presbyter differ not <HI>jure divino:</HI> but this I &s;uppo&s;e will not well plea&s;e his Lord&s;hip and indeed is very un&s;uitable to the dignity of one who Ruleth over others: &s;ure the dignity of Church-Officers is to be reckoned by the dignity of their place; where it is different: as it is by the di&s;charge of their work where their place is the &s;ame.</P>
<P><HI>Sect.</HI> 17. To &s;trengthen this his Conceit, he brings a te&s;timony out of <HI>Chry&s;o&s;t.</HI> affirming, that the <GAP DESC="foreign">, the fixed Officers of particular Churches, <Q>who were <GAP DESC="foreign">, were
<PB N="147" REF="76">inferiour to them, who preaching the Go&s;pel, travelled a|broad into divers places.</Q> <HI>An&s;w.</HI> This is not at all to the purpo&s;e: for they who &s;o travelled abroad, were Evange|li&s;ts; no fixed Officers: but of the former, the Apo&s;tle doth not at all &s;peak here; <Q>It rather appeareth (&s;aith the Author, <HI>A&s;&s;er.</HI> 1. <HI>Gover. Ch. Scotl.</HI>)</Q> that Elders were or|dained in every City, there to abide with their particular charges, <HI>Acts</HI> 14.23. <HI>Tit.</HI> 1.5. He argueth al&s;o thus again&s;t Ruling-Elders: <Q>The&s;e Elders are not the Bi&s;hops <HI>Paul</HI> &s;peaketh of, 1 <HI>Tim.</HI> 3. For the&s;e mu&s;t be <GAP DESC="foreign">, <HI>ver&s;e</HI> 2. <HI>l. An&s;w.</HI></Q> The Author now cited, an|&s;wereth this Argument brought by Dr. <HI>Field,</HI> and citeth <HI>Beza,</HI> an&s;wering to <HI>Sarav.</HI> who had u&s;ed it. Pa&s;&s;ing his fir&s;t An&s;wer, I make u&s;e of the 2d, which is <HI>Beza</HI>'s, That the Ruling-Elder, though he ought not to Teach publick|ly as a Pa&s;tor, yet he ought to Teach privately, and occa&s;io|nally, according as the need of every one requireth: it is his part to over&s;ee the manners of the people, and to bring mi&s;carriages to the Church to be cen&s;urd; but fir&s;t he is to labour to reclaim the Offender by private admonition, according to Chri&s;t's Rule, <HI>Matth.</HI> 18.15, 16, 17. and that not only <HI>ex charitate,</HI> as every Chri&s;tian ought to do; but <HI>virtute Officii</HI> and authoritatively: and for this cau&s;e he ought to be a Man of Under&s;tanding above the common &s;ort, both able and willing to Teach (&s;o the word bear|eth) &s;o far as his place requireth. Again, he argueth from <HI>Act.</HI> 20.28. <Q>All the Elders of <HI>Ephe&s;us</HI> had a Pa&s;toral charge, for they are bid take heed to the Flock as Over&s;eers: but this is incon&s;i&s;tent with the Notion of a Lay-Elder, <HI>Ergo,</HI> there were none &s;uch at <HI>Ephe&s;us. An&s;w.</HI></Q> The Major is fal&s;e: they had a charge and over&s;ight: but every over&s;ight is not Pa&s;toral. Ruling al&s;o falleth under this Notion, which is the Office of the Elder we plead for. He confe&s;|&s;eth, <HI>p.</HI> 338. the weakne&s;s of that argument from Mainte|nance, which he &s;aith <Q>brought <HI>Blondel</HI> quite off from Ruling-Elders, in that place of 1 <HI>Tim.</HI> 5 17.</Q> It is true, <HI>Blondel de jur. Pleb. in Reg. Eccl. p</HI> 77, &amp;c. alledgeth, That the&s;e Elders are not there meant, becau&s;e Mainte|nance
<PB N="148" REF="77"><Q>(implied in double Honour, as is clear from <HI>ver.</HI> 18. compared) is due to the&s;e, but not to Ruling-Elders.</Q> Yet the Argument, with all the enforcements of that learn|ed Author, will not prove what he de&s;igneth. For 1. Some famous Interpreters under&s;tand this double Honour, only of a degree of Honour beyond the&s;e &s;poken of before, <HI>viz.</HI> Widows, &s;o <HI>Calv.</HI> in <HI>loc.</HI> 2. How &s;hall it be proved, that Maintenance is not due to Ruling-Elders, or the <HI>&s;eniores plebis,</HI> as <HI>Blondel</HI> calleth them? His arguments taken from the di&s;u&s;e of it, will not conclude this: neither what he &s;aith of the want of Power in any to remit it: for where it cannot be had for them, nece&s;&s;ity excu&s;eth the withholding of it: where it cannot be had, let the Inhaun|cers of Church-Rents an&s;wer for it, if &s;uch nece&s;&s;aries be not &s;upplied to the Church: neither do I blame him for blaming (<HI>p.</HI> 83.) the&s;e Prote&s;tant Nations, who have ca&s;t out Abbacies which abounded in Riches, have rather taken the Revenues into the State-Trea&s;ury, than allowed it for &s;uch good U&s;es as this. I add for further an&s;wer out of <HI>A&s;&s;er. Gover. Ch. Scotl.</HI> p. 105. That a &s;tipend, though due, is not e&s;&s;ential to the Office, either of Elders or Mini&s;ters; and therefore the want of the one, can be no argument a|gain&s;t the other; But neither is <HI>Blondel</HI> again&s;t the Office of Ruling-Elders (though he deny them to be &s;poken of in 1 <HI>Tim.</HI> 5.17. but di&s;puteth &s;trongly for it, yea, and groundeth it on the Apo&s;tles practice, <HI>p.</HI> 85, which is an e|vidence of Divine Right. The next thing Mr. <HI>Stilling.</HI> &s;aith again&s;t Ruling-Elders, is, <Q>That if we remove from the Scripture to the Primitive Church, we &s;hall find the great|e&s;t difficulty to trace the foot&s;teps of a Lay-Elder through the Records of Authority for the fir&s;t 3 Centuries e&s;peci|ally.</Q> <HI>An&s;w.</HI> 1. We look on the Scripture as a <HI>&s;urer Word of Prophecy,</HI> and therefore are unwilling to pa&s;s from it, to that which Mr. <HI>Stilling.</HI> hath above proved, to be utterly &s;o in&s;ufficient to determine in matters of Church-Government. 2. Others are of another mind than this Author. <HI>Blondel. de jur. pleb. in Reg. Eccl. p.</HI> 85. <Q><HI>aliis igitur,</HI> &s;aith he, <HI>firmamentis, iis nimirum, qui nobis Apo&s;tolorum primamque per trium &s;ae|culorum
<PB N="149" REF="77">periodum antiquitatis, praxin &s;travit, &s;eniorum plebis In&s;titutio &amp; functio (ut &s;ic dicam) vitae &agrave; prote&s;tantibus per Gallias, Scotiam, Belgiam in&s;tituta &s;tatuminanda e&s;t.</HI></Q> And <HI>A&s;&s;er. Grov. Ch. Scot. par.</HI> 1. <HI>c.</HI> 8, 9. Unpregnable and abundant Te&s;timonies out of Antiquity are brought for this Office, which &s;eeing Mr. <HI>Stilling.</HI> hath not An&s;wered, it is needle&s;s to in&s;i&s;t on them. 3. But, and if in many places in the Primitive times this Office was di&s;u&s;ed, it was their fault, and taken notice of by the better &s;ort. <HI>Calv.</HI> in 1 <HI>Tim.</HI> 5.17. &s;peaking of this Office, &s;aith, <Q><HI>Hunc morem Ambro&s;ius ab&s;olevi&s;&s;e conqueritur doctorum Ignavia, vel potius &s;uperbia dum &s;oli volunt eminere.</HI></Q> See Te&s;timonies for the Antiquity of it. <HI>Smect.</HI> &s;ect. 15.</P>
<P><HI>Sect.</HI> 18. His &s;econd proof of his &s;econd Propo&s;iti|on, <HI>viz.</HI> That the Apo&s;tles took diver&s;e cour&s;es in Ruling Churches, is <HI>p.</HI> 340. <Q>from the multitude of unfixed Of|ficers re&s;iding in &s;ome places, who managed the affairs of the Church in chief, during their re&s;idence: &s;uch were Apo&s;tles and Evangeli&s;ts. In &s;ome places, &s;aith he, the&s;e were, others not, and in &s;ome places no Officers but the&s;e.</Q> <HI>An&s;w.</HI> This is obviated by our 3d Ob&s;erv. For the Que|&s;tion is only about Government by ordinary and abiding Officers, and that only where they could be had, of whom this proof doth not &s;peak. His 3d Proof, <HI>ibid.</HI> <Q>is from the different cu&s;toms ob&s;erved in the Church after the A|po&s;tles times.</Q> This is mo&s;t incon&s;equent: yea, one might as well rea&s;on thus: In after-times they &s;et up Metropoli|tans, and at la&s;t a Pope, <HI>Ergo,</HI> it was &s;o in the Apo&s;tles times. We &s;ay then, That diver&s;ity in after Ages flowed from this; that Men (following Mr. <HI>Stilling.</HI> Principles) did not follow divine In&s;titution, or Apo&s;tolick practice, but their own Wit and Rea&s;on. Be&s;ide, the diver&s;ities he here in&s;tanceth in, are not to the purpo&s;e; for he doth not &s;hew us that Parity was in one place, and imparity in ano|ther; but that in one place the Presbyters chu&s;ed their Bi|&s;hop, in another not.</P>
<P><HI>Sect.</HI> 19. We come at la&s;t to his <HI>3d</HI> propo&s;ition about Apo&s;tolick practice <HI>p.</HI> 341. <HI>viz.</HI> <Q>That a meer Apo&s;tolical
<PB N="150" REF="78">practice being &s;uppo&s;ed, is not &s;ufficient of it &s;elf for the founding of an unalterable and perpetual Rite for the Form of Government in the Church which is &s;uppo&s;ed to be founded on that Practice.</Q> This doctrine he laid down before <HI>par.</HI> 1 <HI>c.</HI> 1. <HI>p.</HI> 23. And we examined <HI>p.</HI> where I &s;tated that que&s;tion far otherwi&s;e than he &s;eemeth here to do, and indeed this propo&s;ition, as here laid down, might be yielded by us: neither doth it nor his Arguments for it touch the controver&s;ie, which is <HI>andabatarum more pugnare.</HI> We lay no obligation on any by a meer Apo&s;tolical Pra|ctice; but by their Practice con&s;idered as done in the &s;ame ca&s;e that we are in. Neither 2. do we &s;ay that &s;uch pra|ctice is &s;ufficient of it &s;elf to bind us, for it hath Gods com|mand of Imitation, of which before; and equal Morality of that action to us and then to concur with it in this. Nei|ther do we &s;ay. 3. That their Practice doth found a Riet: it doth but declare what is founded on the will of Chri&s;t as that which we mu&s;t do. Mo&s;t of all his Arguments are obviated by what is already &s;aid. <Q>The fir&s;t, that they did many things without intention of obliging others, as go|ing abroad to Preach the Go&s;pel unprovided;</Q> <HI>Pauls</HI> not taking wages <HI>&amp;c.</HI> This doth not touch the point, &s;eeing the&s;e things were for a peculiar rea&s;on. To the &s;ame pur|po&s;e is the <HI>2d</HI> Argument <HI>p.</HI> 343. (which indeed is but the &s;ame Argument) that they did many things on particular <Q>occa&s;ions, emergencies and circum&s;tances; as <HI>Pauls</HI> celebate, Community of goods, Preaching in private Hou&s;es, Fields, <HI>&amp;c.</HI></Q> That which only is worth the noticing in this Argu|ment is <HI>p.</HI> 344. <Q>That he requireth, before Apo&s;tolical Practice be obligations, that it be made appear, that what they did was not according as they &s;aw rea&s;on depend|ing on the &s;everal circum&s;tances of Time, place and per|&s;ons, but from &s;ome unalterable Law of Chri&s;t.</Q> <HI>An&s;wer.</HI> This we are able to prove, as to ruling the Churches by a Parity of Elders, for they did ordinarily &s;o practice, and that where the place, per&s;ons and times were not the &s;ame: neither can it be &s;hewed that ever they did otherwi&s;e. <HI>i. e.</HI> &s;et up a Bi&s;hop over Presbyters: is not this &s;ufficient ground
<PB N="151" REF="78">to think that they did this not occa&s;ionally but by a Law of Chri&s;t? His <HI>3d</HI> Argument, is <Q>That the Office of Deacone&s;|&s;es is of Apo&s;tolick practice: and yet now laid a&s;ide as not binding.</Q> <HI>An&s;wer.</HI> 1. It is the opinion of &s;ome Learned men, as <HI>Peter Martyr Loc. Com. cla&s;.</HI> 4. <HI>c.</HI> 1. <HI>num.</HI> 11. and the Author of <HI>A&s;&s;er. Gov. Ch. Scot. par.</HI> 1. <HI>c.</HI> 5. <HI>p.</HI> 38 (who citeth al&s;o <HI>Aretius</HI>) that though women might be taken into that part of the Office of the Deacon that concerneth caring for the Sick; yet men al&s;o might exerci&s;e it: which is gathered from <HI>Ro.</HI> 12.8. <GAP DESC="foreign"> he that &s;heweth mer|cy, and 1 <HI>Tim.</HI> 5.8. <GAP DESC="foreign"> though Widows be there &s;poken of, yet the be&s;t interpreters turn the&s;e words in the <HI>ma&s;culine gender;</HI> and our tran&s;lation thus, If any provide not for his own Hou&s;e, which they would not do if they thought that Widows only were they to whom that Office belonged. 2. Suppo&s;ing them to be u&s;ed in the Apo&s;to|lick Church, there may be a peculiar rea&s;on for it: in tho&s;e daies of per&s;ecution many were &s;trangers, others ca&s;t off by their Parents and Friends for the profe&s;&s;ion of the truth: when &s;uch were &s;ick, none could &s;o well attend them as women: the ca&s;e is not &s;o now: and if it were, &s;ure this example might &s;hew us our Duty. 4. If it can be proved to have been the con&s;tant U&s;e of Apo&s;tolick Churches, and that with out &s;uch extraordinary nece&s;&s;ity; then the neglect of it is a great defect in the Church. <Q>His fourth Argu|ment is, that &s;ome Apo&s;tolick rites and Cu&s;tomes are out of u&s;e, <HI>Ergo,</HI> their example doth not bind. He in&s;tanceth dipping in Bapti&s;m, love-Fea&s;ts, community of goods, the Holy Ki&s;s.</Q> <HI>An&s;wer.</HI> We deny the antecedent, being un|der&s;tood of Cu&s;tomes not built on a rea&s;on peculiar to them. His In&s;tances prove nothing, dipping cannot be proved to have been only u&s;ed, and if it were; to us it is not fal&s;e, becau&s;e of the coldne&s;s of our Climate. We deny the love Fea&s;ts to have been <HI>Apo&s;tolical.</HI> Yea they are ex|pre&s;ly condemned as u&s;ed in the Church 1 <HI>Cor.</HI> 11.22. and if they were u&s;ed el&s;ewhere, it was a Civil Cu&s;tome, and &s;o not falling in within the pre&s;ent debate. Ki&s;&s;ing was the
<PB N="152" REF="79">Civil cu&s;tome in Salutation; this the Apo&s;tle 1 <HI>The&s;.</HI> 5.26. would have them to u&s;e holily: neither can it be proved that ever it was religiou&s;ly ob&s;erved in the Apo&s;tolical Church. Community of goods was built on a peculiar rea|&s;on, &s;uting tho&s;e times of per&s;ecution, and &s;o not to the purpo&s;e. Whatever can be proved to be Apo&s;tolical and falleth not under the exceptions before mentioned, we &s;hall bear the blame if we ob&s;erve them not.</P>
</DIV2>
<DIV2 N="7" TYPE="chapter">
<HEAD>CHAP. VII.</HEAD>
<P>THE Medium by which he here proveth the Form of Church-Government to be indifferent, is taken from the practice of the antient Churches in Ages &s;uc|ceeding that of the Apo&s;tles: he taketh much pains to prove that the Primitive Church did not conceive it &s;elf obliged to ob&s;erve one individual Form; <Q>but &s;ettled things as it judged them tend mo&s;t to peace and edification, without any antecedent obligation binding to one cour&s;e: and thence inferreth, that no certainty can be brought from their practice to prove one Form to be <HI>juris divini.</HI></Q> We are not concerned here to enter the li&s;ts with him: it &s;hall be &s;ufficient to our purpo&s;e, to animadvert a few things in general. 1. It is no great matter if we yield him the con|clu&s;ion, &s;eeing we have &s;ufficient ground to build the divine Right of Presbyterial Government upon, in Scripture; and &s;o may &s;pare any Argument that may be brought for it from antiquity. 2. It is no wonder that the one Primitive and Apo&s;tolical yea, divine Form of Government was not every where &s;tuck to in after ages: &s;eeing the ambition of many men began &s;oon to carry them beyond the boundaries Chri&s;t had &s;et, to devi&s;e what might be&s;t &s;uit their own hu|mours, rather than what was for the Churches good: the Apo&s;tle telleth us that even in his daies (which was a won|der)
<PB N="153" REF="79">this My&s;tery of iniquity had begun to work, 2 <HI>The&s;.</HI> 2.7. It is no wonder then, that &s;oon after it began to ap|pear: and when &s;ome had thus mi&s;carried, and others &s;tuck to the Apo&s;tolical frame of things, this might quickly breed a diver&s;ity. 3. It will ea&s;ily appear to any who readeth this Chap. that all the Authours di&s;cour&s;e tendeth to prove that the ancient Churches thought not Epi&s;copacy to be <HI>jure divino:</HI> let them who are concerned an&s;wer him in this if they can, I am convinced of the truth of what he &s;aith. But let us take a &s;hort view of the grounds on which he e&s;tabli|&s;heth what he a&s;&s;erteth in this Chap.</P>
<P><HI>Sect.</HI> 2. The fir&s;t is, <Q>That the extent of the Power of Church-Officers did increa&s;e meerly from the enlargment of the bounds of Churches: which he maketh out in 4 &s;teps or periods.</Q> The fir&s;t is, when Churches were the &s;ame with Chri&s;tians in a whole City. And here he hand|leth 3 things, fir&s;t he &s;heweth that the Primitive con&s;tituti|on of Churches was in a Society of Chri&s;tians in the &s;ame City: <Q>where he will have the name [Church] in Scripture to be only given to that, not to a particuler congregation meeting in one place.</Q> I do not deny but the name is given as he &s;aith, becau&s;e of that confederacy in di&s;cipline among divers congregations in one City: yet neither the name nor the nature of a Church mu&s;t be denied to a &s;ingle congregation; for a Church in Scripture-Language is a com|pany met together to &s;erve God: now this agreeth well to a &s;ingle Congregation; &s;eeing in it not only word and Sacraments are admini&s;tred, but al&s;o di&s;cipline is exerci&s;ed, as &s;hall anon appear. All that he &s;aith proveth the former U&s;e of the word; but nothing again&s;t this latter. 2. He &s;peaketh of the Government of the&s;e Churches <HI>p.</HI> 352. <Q>And that 1. before Pari&s;hes, or di&s;tinct Congregations were &s;ettled. 2. after they were &s;ettled (about which he large|ly di&s;puteth when it began, which is not to our purpo&s;e) in both ca&s;es, he &s;aith, they were ruled in common; and <HI>p.</HI> 354. That it is a weak conceit to think that after the &s;etling of Congregations, every one had a di&s;tinct Presby|tery to rule it, and <HI>p.</HI> 356. this crumbling &s;aith he, of
<PB N="154" REF="80">Church-Power into every Congregation is a thing ab&s;o|lutely di&s;owned by the greate&s;t and mo&s;t Learned Patrons of Presbytery beyond the Seas, as may be &s;een in <HI>Calv. Beza, Salma&s;ius, Blondel, Ger&s;on, Bucer</HI> and others.</Q> I do readily yield to him, that it is mo&s;t probable that in times of Per&s;ecution, particular congregations could not be &s;oon &s;ettled: and that then, where there were in one City more Chri&s;tians then could meet in one place, they were ruled only in Common, yea and had their meetings for wor&s;hip occa&s;ionally as they could. Al&s;o we grant that when Con|gregations were &s;ettled, the &s;everal Congregrations in one City were ruled by one common Presbytery made up of the Officers of them all: but that they had not their di&s;tinct Presbyters that ruled them &s;everally in &s;ubordination to this &s;uperior Presbyters we utterly deny; and I look upon it as a too &s;upercilious a&s;&s;ertion, to call this a weak conceit. &s;eeing it is well known that it hath been the Judgment of men with whom, for ability, I think Mr. <HI>Still.</HI> mode&s;ty will not &s;uffer him to compare him&s;elf. But what ever be of the ability of them who own it; there is rea&s;on for it &s;o weighty, as may excu&s;e it from weakne&s;s; which is this: Single Congregations meeting ordinarily together for the wor&s;hip of God, cannot but have many affairs that do only concern them, not the other Churches or Congregations in the &s;ame City; as admi&s;&s;ion or exclu&s;ion of their mem|bers from the Lords Supper, rebuking them, con&s;ulting about the time and ordering of their Admini&s;tration <HI>&amp;c.</HI> 'Tis very unfit to bring all the&s;e things, in <HI>prima in&s;tantia,</HI> to the Presbytery that ruleth in common. This I confirm out of what him&s;elf hath written, <HI>p.</HI> 368. He &s;aith <Q>that Country Churches had their own rulers who ruled them, though with &s;ubordination to tho&s;e in the City:</Q> is there not the &s;ame rea&s;on why particular Congregations, though in City &s;hould have their Rulers? 'tis as really inconvenient to bring every matter of a City-Congregation, at the fir&s;t hand, to the common Presbyters, as it is to bring the matters of a Country Pari&s;h to it. Yet we acknowledge that it is to be ordered according as it conduceth mo&s;t to the good of
<PB N="155" REF="80">the Church: neither if we &s;hould yield all that he &s;aith, is it any thing again&s;t the Divine Right of Parity. What he &s;aith of the&s;e worthy Divines di&s;owning this Power of par|ticular Congregations, we have cau&s;e to &s;u&s;pend our belief of it, till he bring &s;ome te&s;timony of their own writings to prove it, which he hath not &s;o much as e&s;&s;aid. It is like they were again&s;t Independent Power of Particular Con|gregations; not their &s;ubordinate Power: for the Te&s;timo|nies that he bringeth they prove no more than what we have granted, <HI>viz.</HI> That the Congregations were ruled in common: not, that they had no particular Government in each of them; as any may ea&s;ily &s;ee by con&s;idering them. Neither is it any wonder that the records of Antiquity &s;peak of the acts of tho&s;e greater, not of the le&s;&s;er and Congre|gational Presbyteries: &s;eeing matters coming before the lat|ter were of &s;o private concernment; &s;uch as u&s;e not often to be &s;o much taken notice of. The <HI>3d</HI> thing he &s;peaketh of in this fir&s;t &s;tep of the growth of Churches, is, <Q>what Relation the Churches in &s;everal Cities had one to another,</Q> and to the le&s;&s;er City, that were under them: and here he <Q>maintaineth that Metropolitans are not of Divine Right;</Q> to which we agree: I add, that in the fir&s;t and more pure Pri|mitive times they had no Being at all, as is clearly made out by <HI>Diocl. Altar. Dama&s;c.</HI> c. 2. Where he &s;heweth that <HI>Ju&s;tine</HI> and <HI>Ireneus</HI> have nothing of the different degree of Bi&s;hops: and that <HI>Cyprian</HI> in the middle of the third Cen|tury doth often a&s;&s;ert their Parity. The &s;econd &s;tep is, <HI>p.</HI> 368. <Q>When Churches took in the Villages and Territo|ries adjoining to that Citie: he &s;aith, that the City-Pres|byters did Preach in the&s;e places, and adjoined the Con|verts to the City-Church. till after, when they were in|crea&s;ed in Villages they got peculiar Officers &s;et over them, who did rule them, yet with &s;ubordination to the City-Church.</Q> This la&s;t I only di&s;like: neither do I &s;ee it proved by him, for the Titles of <HI>matrix eccle&s;ia, et Cathedra principalis</HI> &s;ignifie no more but a greater dignity and pri|macy of Order, not of Jurisdiction. What he &s;aith of that <HI>Eulogie,</HI> &s;ending abroad con&s;ecrated pieces of bread, doth
<PB N="156" REF="81">not prove the point: and al&s;o it was a &s;uper&s;titious cu&s;tome: the bad improvement of it appeareth in the <HI>Papi&s;h</HI> adorati|on of their <HI>Ho&s;tia.</HI> His next &s;tep is <HI>p.</HI> 372. <Q>When Chur|ches did a&s;&s;ociate in one Province: where he &s;peaketh of Provincial Synods once a year, and &s;heweth that no Bi&s;hop had power over another, but that their Honour depended on their Sees. Thence he cometh to the la&s;t &s;tep, when the whole World became Chri&s;tians, and the Bi&s;hops of <HI>Rome</HI> and <HI>Con&s;tantinople</HI> did &s;trive for the place of Univer|&s;al Bi&s;hop.</Q> I hope it appeareth to any who con&s;ider, that there is nothing yet &s;aid by him which can overturn the Divine Rite of Parity, even to have been maintained in the Primitive times (I mean not of the la&s;t &s;tep he &s;peak|eth of, when Papacy it &s;elf began to appear) for all that hath been &s;aid &s;heweth that Imparity was never judged of nece&s;&s;ity; and that the Imparity which was u&s;ed was ra|ther of Order than of Juri&s;diction, which is nothing again&s;t the Divine Rite of that Parity we plead for.</P>
<P><HI>Sect.</HI> 3. His <HI>2d</HI> Argument <HI>p.</HI> 374. is, <Q>That the &s;ame Form was not of old ob&s;erved in all Churches: where he &s;heweth that in many places, there were no Bi&s;hops; as he proveth of <HI>Scotland</HI> and other places. This we accept of, and add,</Q> that where there were Bi&s;hops, it is not, nor can|not be by him proved, that they had any Superior Juri&s;dicti|on, but only Precedency: and &s;o the Divine Rite of Parity may &s;tand for all this. His <HI>3d</HI> Argument <HI>p.</HI> 377. is, <Q>That the Government of the Church was conform to the Civil Government, which he &s;aith is in&s;i&s;ted on by Learned Per|&s;ons on all &s;ides; e&s;pecially after the divi&s;ion of the <HI>Ro|man</HI> Empire. And he giveth &s;ome In&s;tances of it in the corre&s;pondency of Civil Prefects and Arch-Bi&s;hops in &s;e|veral places.</Q> To all this let me &s;ay a few words. 1. This Argument de&s;troyeth it &s;elf: for in the fir&s;t antiquity which was the &s;ure&s;t, the Powers of the World were not Chri&s;ti|an, and &s;o the Church could not conform to the &s;tate in her Offices. 2. It is here confe&s;&s;ed, that this Conformity was e&s;pecially (I believe it may be &s;aid <HI>only</HI>) after that divi&s;ion of the <HI>Roman</HI> Empire: but tho&s;e were the times when the
<PB N="157" REF="81">man of Sin had almo&s;t got into his chair; and therefore their practice can prove nothing of the mind of the Primi|tive Church. 3. If this notion hold, then it mu&s;t be look|ed upon as a lawful and prudent expedient, that there be one Pope as there was one Emperor. This Mr. <HI>Still.</HI> mu&s;t maintain, or he &s;aith nothing. 4. If this was their Rite of old, then the Church behoved to be under two chief Bi|&s;hops when the Roman Emperor was divided into two. But this he doth not alledge, but rather &s;heweth how it was divided into 13 Dioce&s;&s;es. 5. If we receive this opi|nion, then in a Kingdome there mu&s;t be one head, who mu&s;t have his Councel of Bi&s;hops, without a charge of the &s;everal Dioce&s;&s;es (for the Kings Council hath not Prece|dency of &s;everal parts of the Country) and they mu&s;t au|thorize their deputies, like Sheriffs, yearly <HI>&amp;c.</HI> And in a Common-wealth there mu&s;t be Independant Government: but this I hope the Author will not own. 6. It is mo&s;t un|rea&s;onable to &s;ay that the Church-Government &s;hould be conform to the Civil; becau&s;e they are conver&s;ant about things and aim at ends &s;o different: the one re&s;pecteth things that are mo&s;t different in &s;everal Nations, <HI>viz.</HI> Mens Civil Intere&s;t, and Cu&s;tomes and Inclinations: the other re&s;pect|eth that which ought to be every where the &s;ame, <HI>viz.</HI> Religion. His 4. Argument <HI>p.</HI> 379. is, <Q>That other Epi&s;|copal Government was &s;ettled in the Church, yet Presby|terian Ordination was looked on as valid.</Q> This is not again&s;t us. His la&s;t Argument <HI>p.</HI> 382. is, <Q>That &s;everal re&s;traints were laid on by Councils about the Ob&s;ervation of Rites and Cu&s;tomes and &s;omething of Church-Di&s;ci|pline; but what is this I pray to Parity or Imparity?</Q> we are not again&s;t determinations of Indifferent things that concern order and decency: though we think that the Form of Government is determined by Chri&s;t, not left to the will of man.</P>
</DIV2>
<DIV2 N="8" TYPE="chapter">
<PB N="158" REF="82">
<HEAD>CHAP. VIII.</HEAD>
<P>IN this Chapter our Author would make us believe, that all the world was ever of his Opinion: and indeed this is &s;o common for men to alledg, whatever be their &s;ingular notions of things, that we are not to lay much weight upon it. <HI>Videlius</HI> took as much pains to make all reformed Divines to &s;peak for <HI>Era&s;tiani&s;m.</HI> I might ex|cu&s;e my &s;elf from medling any further with this la&s;t Chap|ter of his. 1. From the needle&s;ne&s;s of the thing; be|cau&s;e we do not build the Divine Right of Presbytery on mens Opinions, who we know can err, and therefore if all the world were again&s;t it, if the Scripture be for it &s;o mu&s;t we. 2. From the di&s;advantage I lie under as to this part of the di&s;pute with him. If I had been of Mr. <HI>Still.</HI> opinion in this point in controver&s;ie, I might through compliance with cour&s;es have been furni&s;hed with a good Library and other conveniencies of &s;tudy|ing, the want of which doth incapacitate me to &s;earch in|to the opinions of tho&s;e worthy men which he citeth: in doing whereof, I hope it would not be difficult to &s;hew that &s;ome of their Te&s;timonies are made to &s;peak otherwi&s;e than they thought; and others of them are ir|reconcilable with what them&s;elves have el&s;ewhere writ|ten.</P>
<P><HI>Sect.</HI> 2. Notwith&s;tanding we &s;hall e&s;&s;ay briefly to &s;ay as much to his allegations, as may take off that edge they &s;eem to have, for cutting a&s;under the cau&s;e which we maintain. <HI>P.</HI> 384. he hath a confident a&s;&s;ertion. <Q>I believe, &s;aith he, there will upon the mo&s;t impartial &s;urvey, &s;carce be one Church of the Reformation brought which doth embrace any form of Government, becau&s;e it looked upon that form as only nece&s;&s;ary by an unalterable &s;tanding Law: but every one took up
<PB N="159" REF="82">that form of Government which was judged mo&s;t &s;uta|ble to the &s;tate and condition of the &s;everal Churches.</Q> I wonder to &s;ee this &s;o confidently a&s;&s;erted, without proof. It had been incumbent on Mr. <HI>Still.</HI> for confirm|ing this his dream, to have gone through the confe&s;&s;ion of the &s;everal reformed Churches; and let us &s;ee on what ground they then built their Church-Government; for it will not &s;ufficiently prove what was the judgment of the&s;e Churches, that &s;ome eminent men in them did a&s;&s;ert &s;uch things: which latter of the two he only in|&s;i&s;teth on, and that to little purpo&s;e too, as I hope &s;hall appear. But the fal&s;ehood of this Allegiance I will make appear afterwards, when I have tried the &s;trength of the Te&s;timonies he bringeth for his opinions.</P>
<P><HI>Sect.</HI> 3. He beginneth with them who have a&s;&s;erted the mutability of the form of Government <HI>in The&s;i</HI> where he maketh it his chief bu&s;ine&s;s to &s;hew, that the Church of <HI>England</HI> of old was of this opinion. To which I an&s;wer, That tho&s;e worthy men having no|thing in their eye but Epi&s;copacy; their work was to oppo&s;e 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 de&s;ign. Of Foreign Divines, his fir&s;t Te&s;timony is of <HI>Chemnitius:</HI> to which I cannot give a particular an&s;wer, becau&s;e not having his book I cannot try it: only this confideration I &s;hall lay down, to take off the &s;trength of it. Neither Mr. <HI>Still.</HI> nor any man el&s;e ought to lay weight on this Te&s;timoney to the purpo&s;e it is brought for: for either he meaneth that the degrees of Church-Officers in re&s;pect of precedency are left free, or in re&s;pect of Juri&s;diction: if the fir&s;t, it is nothing contrary to what we hold, for we acknowledg it indiffe|rent, whether there be a &s;tanding Precedent over Pre&s;|bytery or not. If the &s;econd, he is directly contrary to Mr. <HI>Stillingfleet,</HI> who maintains, that the Church may &s;et up no new Officers but what Chri&s;t hath in&s;tituted,
<PB N="160" REF="83">as we have &s;een before: now an order of Officers with juri&s;diction above what Chri&s;t hath in&s;tituted, cannot but be a &s;ort of Officers that he hath not in&s;tituted: wherefore Mr. <HI>Still.</HI> could not make U&s;e of this Te&s;timo|ny, neither ought any el&s;e, for it cro&s;&s;eth the Scripture; which (<HI>Rom.</HI> 12.6, 7, 8. <HI>Ephe&s;.</HI> 11.1. 1 <HI>Cor.</HI> 12.28.) doth on purpo&s;e enumerate the Officers of the Church in all their degrees. I di&s;pute not now what they are; but &s;ure they are not left at liberty; &s;eeing the Lord hath &s;o often declared his mind in this Point: to what purpo&s;e is it &s;aid that the Lord hath in his Church &s;uch and &s;uch Officers; if men may at their plea&s;ure &s;et the&s;e or others, more or fewer of them in the Church.</P>
<P><HI>Sect.</HI> 4. His next Te&s;timony is the <HI>Centuriators</HI> of <HI>Magdeburge,</HI> but it containeth an an&s;wer in its forehead, <HI>viz.</HI> That it &s;peaketh not to the thing; for they &s;ay no more but that it is neither Recorded, nor Commanded, how many Mini&s;ters &s;hould be in each Church; but that their may be more or fewer, according to the num|ber of the Church. What is this to their parity or im|patity? 'tis a token that he is very &s;cant of Witne&s;&s;es, when he calleth in them who &s;ay &s;o little to his purpo&s;e. The next Te&s;timony is of <HI>Zanchy,</HI> which he maketh to &s;peak very fair for him: but he hath unhand&s;omly concealed that which is the Key to under&s;tand the mean|ing of this Author; for the Reader may evidently &s;ee his drift, if he fir&s;t look into <HI>Sect.</HI> 9. (<HI>de Relig. c.</HI> 25.) where he a&s;&s;erteth that Chri&s;t hath only given to his Church two forts of ordinary Teachers, <HI>viz.</HI> Pa&s;tors and Doctors: the &s;ame he a&s;&s;erteth, <HI>Sect.</HI> 10. <Q>and yet (which is his mode&s;ty) he will not condemn the Fa|thers who had other Orders of Officers: but what his meaning is, in this his conde&s;cendency, he explaineth <HI>Sect.</HI> 11. That whereas in after Ages, one Pa&s;tor was &s;et over the re&s;t <HI>(non ut Dominus, &s;ed ut Rector in Aca|demia reliquis Collegis,)</HI></Q> this he thinketh was lawful, and yet &s;etteh this note upon that practice in the &s;ame
<PB N="161" REF="83"><Q><HI>Sect. Qua de re Hieronymi tum alibi, tum in Epi&s;t. ad Evagr. &amp; in Commentar. Epi&s;t. ad Tit. c.</HI> 10. <HI>Nar|ratio &amp; &s;ententia nobis probatur, dicentis totum boc ma|gis ex con&s;uetudine quam ex dominicae di&s;po&s;itionis ve|ritate profectum e&s;&s;e.</HI></Q> Which is as much as to &s;ay, He thought it rather &s;omewhat tolerable through nece&s;|&s;ity, than allowable. Which &s;mall glance at the to|lerablene&s;s of a Precedency in the Church (if it may pa&s;s for &s;o much) was not well taken by other Worthy Divines; as appeareth by <HI>Zanchius</HI>'s own ob|&s;ervations on this his Confe&s;&s;ion (which Mr. <HI>Stil|ling.</HI> taketh notice of, but pa&s;&s;eth what might make a|gain&s;t him) for <Q><HI>Magnus quidem vir,</HI> as <HI>Zant.</HI> calleth him:</Q> who was well &s;atisfied with the re&s;t of his Confe&s;&s;ion, excepteth this which he had &s;aid of the Arch-Bi&s;hops and Hierarchie; and that not only as what did di&s;peafe him&s;elf, but was un&s;utable to the harmony of confe&s;&s;ions that the Prote&s;tant Churches were then drawing up: as appeareth by a part of an Epi&s;tle of that <HI>Magnus vir,</HI> to <HI>Zan.</HI> which he in&s;ert|eth to the Preface to his Ob&s;ervations. So that it &s;eems, this was generally di&s;liked by Prote&s;tant Di|vines, contrary to what Mr. <HI>Stilling.</HI> would make us believe, <HI>viz.</HI> That all the Prote&s;tant Churches thought the form of Government indifferent. All which be|ing laid together, let any then judg what great advan|tage Mr. <HI>Stilling</HI>'s cau&s;e hath received from this Te&s;ti|mony of <HI>Zanchie.</HI> E&s;pecially, if we con&s;ider with what Weapon <HI>Zan.</HI> defendeth this his Opinion, <HI>viz.</HI> <Q>That it was generally practi&s;ed by the Ancient Church; and he would not take upon him to di&s;allow them: as may be &s;een in his Ob&s;ervations on Chap. 25. of his Confe&s;&s;ions.</Q> We &s;ee he bringeth no better War|rant than the practice of Men who might, and did in many things err. But Mr. <HI>Stilling.</HI> telleth us of the &s;ame Opinion of <HI>Zan. de 4to praec. loc.</HI> 4. <HI>qu.</HI> 2. <HI>p.</HI> 943, &amp;c. and indeed he teacheth the &s;ame thing,
<PB N="162" REF="84">but with &s;ome advantage to our de&s;ign: for, after he had made the ordinary Officers to be of three &s;orts, <HI>viz.</HI> Pa&s;tors, and Doctors, and Ruling-Elders (who&s;e Office he proveth from Scripture, and a&s;&s;erteth as the Opinion of the Reformed Divines generally) and Deacons: and had proved at length <HI>p.</HI> 950, 951, 952. Presbyters and Bi&s;hops to be the &s;ame in Scri|pture: He &s;heweth <HI>p.</HI> 952, 953. That in after-Ages one of the Presbyters was &s;et over the re&s;t: but ad|deth, to qualifie it <HI>p.</HI> 953. <Q><HI>Idcirco damnari haec, piae vetu&s;tatis ordinatio &amp; con&s;uetudo non pote&s;t, modo plus &s;ibi authoritatis non u&s;urpet Epi&s;copus qu&agrave;m habent re|liqui Mini&s;tri, ut recte monet Hieronymus.</HI></Q> Here he overturneth all Mr. <HI>Stilling</HI>'s de&s;ign, for &s;uch a Bi&s;hop is but a meer Pre&s;ident. He thinks he hath gain'd another Te&s;timony from M. <HI>Bucer,</HI> whom <HI>Zan.</HI> in tho&s;e his ob&s;ervations citeth: but Mr. <HI>Stilling.</HI> hath not told us wherein <HI>Bucer</HI> &s;peaketh to his purpo&s;e; where|fore take this account of <HI>Bucer</HI>'s Opinion out of <HI>Zanch.</HI> He citeth two large Te&s;timonies of <HI>Bucer:</HI> the fir&s;t is out of his Commentary on the <HI>Ephe&s;.</HI> where he &s;peaketh of &s;even kinds of Teaching, <HI>viz.</HI> <Q>By Read|ing, Interpretation, In&s;truction, <HI>(Doctrina)</HI> Exhor|tation, Catechi&s;ms, Di&s;puting, private Admonition: from which he &s;aith, That in the Ancient Church they brought in &s;even kinds of Teachers.</Q> Now what is this to the Parity or imparity of Mini&s;ters? He &s;peaketh nothing here of &s;etting a Lord-Bi&s;hop o|ver his Brethren, as a thing lawfully practi&s;ed in the ancient Church. Yea, if we con&s;ider his Di&s;|cour&s;e well, we &s;hall find that the&s;e were not divers Offices, but the work of the Pa&s;tors divided among more, where there were many Officers in one Church: yet &s;o as all might exerci&s;e all the&s;e Duties; and &s;o here is no multiplication of Offices beyond Chri&s;t's In&s;titution. Though I do not deny, that this di&s;tri|buting of the work of Mini&s;ters did afterwards be|gin
<PB N="163" REF="84">to be looked upon, as making &s;everal orders of Officers: but this he doth not approve of. The &s;econd Te&s;timony of <HI>Bucer</HI> is out of his <HI>de Di&s;cipl. Clerical.</HI> The &s;um of which is this (for the words are too long to be tran&s;cri|bed) That in the Ancient Church they &s;et up a Bi&s;hop a|mong the Presbyters; <HI>'&V;t Con&s;ul inter Senatores,</HI> (this is devolving their Power into his hands, which Mr. <HI>Still.</HI> pleadeth for) That the&s;e Bi&s;hops and Presbyters did meet when occa&s;ion required, in Synods; that one was over the Synod to convocate and moderate it, (this is not to have Juri&s;diction over the re&s;t) who was called <HI>Metropolitan,</HI> from the chief City, where he u&s;ed to re|&s;ide: then over the Metropolitans were &s;et up Patriarchs (but behold how careful he is to prote&s;t again&s;t impa|rity, as to Juri&s;diction) of whom he &s;aith, <Q><HI>His tamen Primatibus Epi&s;copis nihil omnino juris erat in alios Epi|&s;copos alia&s;ve Eccle&s;ias, ultra quod dixi cuique Metropolitae in Eccle&s;ias atque Epi&s;copos &s;uae provinciae:</HI></Q> Which, we took notice before, was to convocate and moderate the Synod. At la&s;t he &s;heweth how among the&s;e Patriarchs the Bi&s;hop of <HI>Rome</HI> was &s;et up as Chief: and then how all good Order went to ruine. Now let this Te&s;timo|ny be con&s;idered, and we &s;hall hope for more advan|tage by it, than Mr. <HI>Stilling.</HI> could expect. From it we draw the&s;e two Conclu&s;ions: 1. That <HI>Bucer</HI> looked upon &s;etting up a Precedent over Presbyters, as the great|e&s;t length that the Primitive Church did or could go to|wards the making of imparity among Mini&s;ters. 2. That even this their practice, though not unlawful in it &s;elf; yet is &s;o inconvenient, that it was the Method and Mean that Antichri&s;t got into his Chair by.</P>
<P><HI>Sect.</HI> 5. He cometh next to the <HI>French</HI> Divines, and be|ginneth with <HI>Fregevile,</HI> who&s;e Te&s;timony we think not worth the An&s;wering, &s;eeing as Mr. <HI>Still.</HI> confe&s;&s;eth, he was Epi&s;copal. His opinion did not &s;uit well with the prin|ciples of that Church he lived in, as we &s;hall &s;ee after. The
<PB N="164" REF="85">next is <HI>Blondel,</HI> that learned writer for Presbyters, as he is called: who&s;e words cited by Mr. <HI>Still.</HI> are not at all to the purpo&s;e; as any may &s;ee at fir&s;t view; &s;eeing he &s;aith no more, but, that it is in the Churches Power to make a perpetual Precedent or not. For <HI>Bochartus</HI> his opinion, that neither <HI>Presbyterialis</HI> nor <HI>Epi&s;copalis ordo</HI> is <HI>juris divini:</HI> if he mean the difference between them in jurisdiction, and not only in Precedency: I &s;ee not how it can be defended, and not having his Book I cannot determine how con&s;i&s;tent it is with his own principles. For <HI>Amiraldus,</HI> whom he bringeth next, his de&s;ign of Union with the <HI>Lutherans,</HI> I believe, did either &s;tretch his opinion or made him &s;tretch his affections to an exce&s;s of conde&s;cendency, which can|not be excu&s;ed but from his good Intention.</P>
<P><HI>Sect.</HI> 6. Our Author cometh next to tho&s;e who look on Parity as the Primitive Form, and yet allow Epi&s;copacy as a very Lawful and u&s;efull con&s;titution. Concerning tho&s;e, I premi&s;e 2 general Remarques. 1. That what the&s;e worthy Divines &s;ay to this purpo&s;e is to be under&s;tood, not of <HI>Epi&s;copus Princeps,</HI> but <HI>Prae&s;es,</HI> according to that di|&s;tinction very common among them. This we mu&s;t hold as only con&s;i&s;tent with their principles, till the contrary be proved out of their own writings. 2. That many things &s;aid by them to this purpo&s;e were the over reaches of their de&s;ire to be one with them who differed from them in this, but agreed in mo&s;t things as the <HI>Lutherans</HI> and &s;ome Eng|li&s;h Divines: they did often (as <HI>Smect.</HI> &s;aith of <HI>Spanhem</HI> to the &s;ame purpo&s;e, <HI>p.</HI> 65.) deliver a Complement rather than their Judgment. But to come to particulars: he be|ginneth with <HI>Cracanthorp,</HI> who excu&s;eth all the Reformed Churches from <HI>Aeriani&s;in,</HI> becau&s;e they held not Imparity to be unlawful. But this man was a Son of the Church of <HI>England</HI> (as they &s;peak) and wrote in her defence again&s;t <HI>Ant. de Domin.</HI> wherefore his Te&s;timony 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 defend|ed
<PB N="165" REF="85">from &s;iding with <HI>Aerius</HI> by <HI>Smect.</HI> p. 79. where it is proved, that <HI>Aerius</HI> was condemned for his Ariani&s;m and other Errors, but not for holding the Divine Right of Pari|ty: and that <HI>Jerome, Augu&s;tus, Sedulius, Primatius, Chri|&s;o&s;tome, Theodoret, Oecumenius, Theophylact,</HI> were of the &s;ame opinion with <HI>Aerius</HI> in this. Next he bringeth the <HI>Augu|&s;tane</HI> confe&s;&s;ion: of the Te&s;timony of which I have the&s;e 3 things to &s;ay. 1. This was not a confe&s;&s;ion of them who are ordinarily called the Reformed Churches; but of the <HI>Lutherans;</HI> for at the &s;ame meeting at <HI>Augu&s;ta</HI> did <HI>Zuing|lius</HI> and the <HI>Helvetians</HI> give in their confe&s;&s;ion apart, by them&s;elves: wherefore it is no wonder, if the&s;e worthy men, who were a reforming, but had not attained to that pitch of it which others had, did retain &s;ome &s;mall tincture of the way according to which they had been bred in this point. 2. <HI>Luther</HI> him&s;elf was not well plea&s;ed with this confe&s;&s;ion, as appeareth by the Relation of <HI>Pezelius,</HI> who (<HI>Mellific. Hi&s;tor.</HI> par. 3. <HI>p.</HI> 336.) &s;aith thus. <Q><HI>Autor vero confe&s;&s;ionis cum Luthero qui in Pontificiis conce&s;&s;um Stomacha|batur confe&s;&s;ionem rudem magis magi&s;&abque; ne&s;piritum extingue|ret, limabat, poliebat, et duriu&s;cula, fermentumque vetus redo|lentiaexpurgabat: via enim ju&s;ti &s;icut aurora lucere pergit u&s;que ad meridiem, id quod ex ip&s;a apologia apparet.</HI></Q> 3. All that is &s;aid in this confe&s;&s;ion, is no more but an expre&s;&s;ion of their de&s;ire to conform and conde&s;cend to the Papi&s;ts in the Pri|mitive order of the Church: but this was no more but the Precedency of Bi&s;hops; the confe&s;&s;ion &s;peaketh not of the Lordly power of Bi&s;hops as it then &s;tood; that they could yield to that: &s;o that even the furthe&s;t they go, in their complemental conde&s;cendency, doth not help Mr. <HI>Still's</HI> cau&s;e; who pleadeth for the &s;ole jurisdiction of Bi&s;hops as lawful.</P>
<P><HI>Sect.</HI> 7. In the next place, he is not a&s;hamed to force <HI>Calvin</HI> to &s;peak for the lawfulne&s;s of Epi&s;copacy, which he could never comport with while he lived. He bringeth his In&s;tit. <HI>lib.</HI> 4. <HI>c.</HI> 4. <HI>&s;ect.</HI> 1. &amp; 4. in both which Sections
<PB N="166" REF="86">he alledgeth no more out of him but this; That the an|cient Bi&s;hops had almo&s;t nothing in their Canons which was be&s;ide the Word of God: and that they u&s;ed no other form of Governing the Church, than was pre&s;cribed in the Word. What doth this help his Cau&s;e? The Ancient Bi&s;hops in <HI>Calvins</HI> judgment, were no more but <HI>Prae&s;ides:</HI> The&s;e, he &s;aith, were not con&s;tituted be&s;ide the Word of God. This is nothing to the &s;cope of our Authors Di&s;|cour&s;e. I hope after to &s;hew that <HI>Calvin</HI> was far from His mind. At pre&s;ent let it &s;uffice to ob&s;erve, that the very words cited by Mr. <HI>Still.</HI> do make again&s;t him. For when <HI>Calvin</HI> &s;aith, <Q><HI>Si rem omi&s;&s;o vocabulo, intuemur, reperiemus veteteres Epi&s;copos non aliam regendae eccle&s;iae formam volui&s;&s;e fingere ab ea, quam deus verbo &s;uo prae&s;crip&s;it:</HI></Q> It is not evident, that he &s;uppo&s;eth God in his Word to have pre|&s;cribed a form of Church-Government. And 2dly, That he a&s;&s;erteth, that the Ancient Bi&s;hops (if we look to the thing, and do not under&s;tand the name <HI>[Bi&s;hop]</HI> as now it is u&s;ed for the Prelate) did &s;tick clo&s;e to this Form; What could be more directly again&s;t Mr. <HI>Still.?</HI> Neither is he more happy in the citing of <HI>Beza</HI> for him: for <HI>Beza</HI>'s di|&s;tinction of Bi&s;hop is well known, <Q>in <HI>Divinus,</HI> i.e. Presbyter; <HI>Humanus,</HI> i. e. &amp;c.</Q> a Pre&s;ident or con&s;tant Moderator; <HI>&amp; Diabolicus,</HI> i. e. a Prelate with &s;ole juri&s;diction. The indif|ferency of the 2d he a&s;&s;erteth, and will not pre&s;cribe that Form u&s;ed at <HI>Geneva</HI> (which was without &s;uch a fixed Pre&s;ident) to other Churches: but what is this to the pur|po&s;e? It is a pity to &s;ee a Learned Man at &s;o much pains, and lo&s;e his labour. It being &s;o as hath been &s;hewed. Mr. <HI>Still.</HI> doth fouly mi&s;repre&s;ent the &s;tate of the Controver&s;ie about Church-Government, that was between the Church of <HI>England</HI> and of <HI>Geneva</HI> in Queen <HI>Elizabeths</HI> time: it was not, as he alledgeth, whether Parity or Epi&s;copacy were more convenient: but whether Prelacy putting &s;ole juri&s;diction in the hand of a Bi&s;hop, or giving him power over his Brethren, were lawful.</P>
<PB N="167" REF="86">
<P><HI>Sect.</HI> 8. Next he bringeth <HI>George Prince</HI> of <HI>Anbalt, Lu|ther, Melancton,</HI> and <HI>Calvin,</HI> profe&s;&s;ing their readine&s;s to &s;ub|mit to Bi&s;hops, if they would do the duty of Bi&s;hops. All which amounts to no more than this, That if Bi&s;hops would keep within bounds, not u&s;urp Authority over their Brethren, nor u&s;e it to the de&s;truction of Religion, they might be born with; but this maketh nothing for the lawful|ne&s;s of Prelacy, which the&s;e Men did ever dete&s;t. For <HI>Jaco|bus Heerbrandus,</HI> I am not acquainted with his Principles, nor his Book. <HI>Hemingius</HI> (who cometh next) &s;peaketh ex|pre&s;ly of <HI>di&s;pares dignitatis ordines,</HI> not <HI>authoritatis;</HI> and &s;o cometh not up to the thing in Que&s;tion. For <HI>Zepper</HI> his judgment of the nece&s;&s;ity of a Superintendent, it de&s;troy|eth our Authors Hypothe&s;is; for if it be nece&s;&s;ary, it is not indifferent. If in any ca&s;e &s;uch a thing be nece&s;&s;ary, it is in that ca&s;e lawful, <HI>(nam nece&s;&s;itas quicquid coegit defendit)</HI> in other ca&s;es it is unlawful. What he &s;aith of Bi&s;hops in &s;ome <HI>Lutheran</HI> Churches, as <HI>Sweden, Denmark,</HI> &amp;c. doth not weigh with us, knowing that they err in greater mat|ters al&s;o. What he &s;aith of other Churches that have their <HI>Praepo&s;iti</HI> or <HI>Seniores</HI> enjoying the &s;ame power with Ancient Bi&s;hops; proveth nothing of the lawfulne&s;s of Prelacy; We think their way lawful: and whether it be convenient to them, or not, we judg not; but to us, &s;ad experience hath proved it mo&s;t inconvenient. The next thing that he in&s;i&s;teth on, <HI>viz.</HI> Epi&s;copal Divines, holding Epi&s;copacy not nece&s;&s;ary, it doth not concern us to An&s;wer, and &s;o we &s;ee to what amounte<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="UOM" EXTENT="1+ letters"> the &s;trength of the&s;e Te&s;timo|nies, which he would fright us with, as if all Men were of his judgment.</P>
<P><HI>Sect.</HI> 9. Having now &s;een of what force are our Authors Witne&s;&s;es, brought for the indifferency of the Form of Church-Government; let us &s;ee if there can be more preg|nant Authority brought for the divine Right of it. I do not que&s;tion but many &s;heets may be filled with pertinent
<PB N="168" REF="87">Citations to this purpo&s;e, by one better &s;tored with Wri|tings of our Reformed Divines, and having lei&s;ure to &s;earch them. I &s;hall give &s;ome in&s;tances, &s;uch as my poor Library doth afford, both of Churches and of particular Divines. And before the Re&s;torers of the Truth, I &s;hall mention tho&s;e famous Con&s;ervators of it in the darke&s;t times of An|tichri&s;tiani&s;m, the <HI>Walden&s;es,</HI> whom &s;ome of our Divines call <HI>Majores No&s;tros:</HI> their Opinion in this may be &s;een in <Q><HI>Walden&s;i&acirc; Confe&s;. Taboritarum per Joa. Lukawitz.</HI> cap. 3. p. 5. <HI>Lex evangelica Je&s;u Chri&s;ti&mdash; per &s;e &s;ufficienti&s;&s;ima ad regimen Eccle&s;iae militantis,</HI> &amp;c. 14. p. 32. <HI>Nos qui pro lege liberrima Je&s;u Chri&s;ti per &s;e &s;ufficienti, ad regimen Eccle&s;iae militantis, &s;ine Ceremoniis Legis veteris &amp; ritibus humanis po&s;t adjectis, &s;cientes, quia &s;ecuri&s;&s;imum e&s;t &amp; optimum Ma|gi&s;terium Eccle&s;iae primitivae, quam regebant Apo&s;toli, actus imitari.</HI></Q> We &s;ee here the &s;ufficiency of Scripture for Church-Government a&s;&s;erted, 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 devi&s;ing: Al&s;o, that Apo&s;tolick practice is in this a Rule to us; both which militate again&s;t Mr. <HI>Stilling</HI>'s Di&s;cour&s;e. I &s;hall next bring the opinion of the <HI>French</HI> and the <HI>Dutch</HI> Churches, held forth in their Confe&s;&s;ions: which I have out of <HI>Smect. &s;ect.</HI> 14. The <HI>French</HI> Church Artic. 29.30. &s;peaketh thus: <Q><HI>Credimus veram Eccle&s;iam gubernari debere, e&acirc; politi&acirc; quam dominus no&s;ter Je&s;us Chri&s;tus &s;ancivit</HI> (then it may not be &s;uch as Men think fit, nor is it indifferent) <HI>ita, viz. aut &s;ui in ea Pa&s;tores, Presbyteri, &s;ive &s;eniores &amp; Diaconi</HI> (then Chri&s;ts in&s;titution is again&s;t Bi&s;hops, &s;eeing he appointeth the re&s;t, and leaveth them out) <HI>ut doctrinae puritas re|tineatur. Credimus omnes Pa&s;tores ubicunque collocati &s;int, eadem &amp; aequali pote&s;tate inter &s;e e&s;&s;e praeditos</HI> (then there can be no imparity of power) <HI>&s;ub uno illo capite &amp; &s;olo univer&s;ali Epi&s;copo Je&s;u Chri&s;ti.</HI></Q> The <HI>Dutch</HI> Church, Art. 30. thus: <Q><HI>Credimus veram hane Eccle&s;iam debere regi ac gu|bernari, &s;pirituali illa politia quam nos deus ip&s;e in verbo &s;uo edocuit, ita ut &s;int in ea Pa&s;tores ac Mini&s;tri, qui pur&egrave;
<PB N="161" REF="87">&amp; concionentur &amp; &s;acramenta admini&s;trent, &s;int etiam &s;enio|res &amp; Diaconi, qui Eccle&s;iae &s;enatum con&s;tituant; ut his ve|luti mediis vera Religio con&s;ervari, homine&s;que vitiis dediti &s;piritualiter corripi, &amp; emendari po&s;&s;int. Tunc enim rite &amp; ordinate omnia fiunt in Eccle&s;i&acirc;, cum viri fideles &amp; pii ad ejus gubernationem deliguntur, juxta Pauli prae&s;criptum</HI> 1 Tim. 3. <HI>caeterum ubicunque locorum &s;int verbi Dei Mini|&s;tri, eandem atque aequalem omnes habent tum pote&s;tatem tum authoritatem: ut qui &s;int aequ&egrave; omnes Chri&s;ti unici illius univer&s;alis Epi&s;copi &amp; capitis Eccle&s;iae Mini&s;tri.</HI></Q> What hath ever been the opinion of the Church of <HI>Scotland</HI> about the Divine Right of Presbyterial Government, is &s;o well known, that I need not mention it: al&s;o what hath been the judgment of the Presbyterian Mini&s;ters of <HI>England,</HI> both in the National Synod of famous memory, and the Provincial A&s;&s;embly of <HI>London,</HI> who have written for the <HI>jus divinum</HI> of it.</P>
<P><HI>Sect.</HI> 10. To this Truth al&s;o, the famous Profe&s;&s;ors of <HI>London</HI> bear their joint Te&s;timony. <HI>Synop&s;. Pur. Theol. Di&s;p.</HI> 48. <HI>The&s;.</HI> 23. <Q><HI>Nec tamen propterea concedimus &agrave; &s;olo aliquo Epi&s;copo, &s;ive Romano, &s;ive Eugobino, ex motu proprio aut ple|naria authoritate, ut loquimur, hanc pote&s;tatem po&s;&s;e vendicari: &s;ed rectorum ac Presbyterorum Eccle&s;iae, concilium, totiu&s;&abque; adeo Eccle&s;iae aut apertum, aut tacitum con&s;en&s;um, adhibendum e&s;&s;e; ex prae&s;cripto Chri&s;ti ac purioris Eccle&s;iae praxi a&s;&s;erimus.</HI></Q> And this they prove, The&s;. 24. Becau&s;e that <HI>[Tell the Church]</HI> can|not be under&s;tood of one Bi&s;hop. <HI>Calvin</HI> is clear for us; for he maketh the Officers of the Church to be by Chri&s;ts In&s;ti|tution; and &s;heweth who they are that he hath In&s;tituted. <HI>In&s;tit. lib.</HI> 4. <HI>c.</HI> 3. <HI>&s;ect.</HI> 4. Al&s;o, <HI>c.</HI> 4. <HI>&s;ect.</HI> 1. He &s;heweth how in the Primitive Church, they &s;tudied carefully to adhere to God's In&s;titution in the Government of the Church. And on <HI>Phil.</HI> 1.1. reproving the U&s;urpation of Bi&s;hops, he &s;aith, <Q><HI>Perinde ac &s;i non omnes Presbyteri Collegae e&s;&s;ent ad eandem vocati functionem, unus &s;ibi, praetextu novae appellationis do|minium in alios arripuit.</HI></Q></P>
<PB N="162" REF="88">
<P><HI>Sect.</HI> 11. I clo&s;e with a &s;hort An&s;wer (&s;uch as it de&s;er|veth) to his la&s;t A&s;&s;ault; which is <HI>p.</HI> 416. <Q>If Prudence mu&s;t be u&s;ed in &s;etling Church-Government, as he &s;aith is confe&s;&s;ed by <HI>Independents</HI> in their Elective Synods: by <HI>Presbyterians</HI> in their &s;ubordination of Courts, Cla&s;&s;ical-A&s;&s;emblles: Epi&s;copal Men in &s;everal things.</Q> <HI>An&s;.</HI> All this is nothing of the particular Form of Government, Parity or imparity, and &s;o nothing to the purpo&s;e. We ab&s;olutely deny that That is to be &s;etled by Prudence; but by the In&s;titution of Chri&s;t; though many Circum&s;tances in Government mu&s;t be determined by Prudence, guided by Scripture-light. For his advice in order to Peace, it containeth many good things; yet cannot we fully clo&s;e with it, till he e&s;tabli&s;h on better grounds than we have yet &s;een, the Ba&s;is of it, <HI>viz.</HI> The indifferency of the particular Form of Church-Government.</P>
<TRAILER>FINIS.</TRAILER>
<PB REF="88">
</DIV2>
</DIV1>
</BODY>
</TEXT>
</EEBO>
</ETS>
