Questions Between the Conformist and Non-Conformist, Tract · Chapter 3
CHAP. III.
THE next thing required of us, is our ſubjection to the Eccleſiaſtical Government, conſiſting of ſix diſtinct Officers (or more) that exerciſe Church-power; and holy Writ knows but one of them: In the Commonwealth none dare pretend to Office but only ſuch as the King and the Law authorize and appoint; if there ſhould be any other, their power and actions were null, invalid, and they liable to puniſhment. But in the Church men can be more bold. Here Dr. Stillingfleet's notion, if true, muſt help us, viz. That Chriſt hath appointed or determined no form of Government in the Church, but left it to the chief Magiſtrates, or Church-governours to appoint the form, &c. the deſign of his Irenicon.
In that Iearned Piece there are ſeveral things I muſt yield to, as, That the power of Ordination is proper to the name foreign, and not foreign, p. 285. To which let me add what Mr. Samuel Smith, a Miniſter dead above 20 years ſince, told us, he with many others, being at one time Ordained by the Biſhop of Peterborough, the Biſhop bad them all take notice, That he did not Ordain as Biſhop, but as Presbyter; this Mr. Smith would take his Oath to be true; yet Biſhop Gauden told me, The power of Ordination was ſolely in the Biſhop, and though Presbyters did impoſe hands with the Biſhop, it was out of courteſie. Thank you, Sir! I am not to meddle with this now. I preſume he would defend this as well as he did the Jus Divinum of Epiſcopacy, in the ſeveral ſheets that paſſed betwixt us upon the queſtion; but whence then comes Reordination to the ſame office in the ſame Church? a thing unknown to Fathers, Councils, Papiſts, Lutherans, Calviniſts, but only to this new Edition of Conformiſts.
2ly. I ſhall yield alſo to him in this, That it is not neceſſary there ſhould be ſo many particular Churches as particular Congregations. And this is a queſtion of great moment. Of this a word hereafter.
3ly. I agree alſo with him, That the power of Order and Juriſdiction is committed by Chriſt ex aequo, to all Miniſters of the Goſpel actu primo, or habitually, p. 197, 198, 275.
By this we may underſtand what he means by Church Governours in the Queſtion. To which I ſhall ſpeak but briefly, though I had prepared a larger diſcourſe upon it. Three things then I would prove,
1. That Chriſt hath appointed a Form of Government in his Church.
2ly. I will ſhew what that form is, and this will prove the firſt.
3ly. That form is Jure Divino. Conſequently if this Eccleſiaſtical Government which we are required to ſubject to, be not according to that Form, then I hope they will not blame us though we refuſe to ſubject unto it, as we would refuſe ſubjection to one in the Commonwealth, who is not an Officer according to Law.
Profeſſing withal for my ſelf, and I dare ſay for all the Nonconformiſts in England, that if it can be made good that Chriſt hath appointed ſuch a Government in his Church, we will moſt willingly ſubject unto it, being glad we are eaſed of ſuch a burden. Pride ſhall never hinder us, though that be ſo much charged upon us.
For the firſt, the Doctor meets with ſeveral arguments that ſome have produced to prove there muſt be a Form appointed, and he anſwers them; but his anſwers do not ſatisfie. I had prepared a reply to his anſwers, but lay it by.
To their Arguments I would add one or two more.
Firſt, if Chriſt hath determined no form of Government in his Church, then the Form may be Monarchical; and Bellarmine's argument to prove it for the prevention of Schiſm, will carry it; a ſimili, ſaith he, &c. de Rom. Pontif. l. 1. c. 9. Dr. Stillingfleet might have ſpared the ſeventh Chapter of his Rational Account, wherein he labours to diſprove the Jeſuit, arguing for the Monarchical Form.
Kings are ſupream in all caſes Eccleſiaſtical, ſays the Church of England; the ſupream Magiſtrate may determine the Form, ſays Doctor Stillingfleet, then the Ten Kings may give their power to the Beaſt without any error.
A Paſtor and a Deacon may ſerve at firſt, while believers are few; but when the Church is enlarged to a whole Nation, there muſt be another Form of Government, ſaith the Doctor, p. 180. Irenic. Go on, Sir; when the Church is enlarged to many Nations, there may be another Form; and why not then Monarchical? Chriſt having determined none, as the Doctor ſaith.
Above one thouſand Presbyters in a Dioceſs may devolve the exerciſe of that power which Chriſt hath committed to them actu primo to one perſon, according to Dr. Stillingfleet; ſo may ten thouſand as well, for ought I know, to one Biſhop, and he may exerciſe it by his Arch-deacon, Chancellor, Commiſſaries, as well as now.
2ly. If God determine a Form of Government in the Jewiſh Church, then Chriſt in the Chriſtian Church. Chriſts Kingly-Government in the heart, is ſecret, none can ſee that; his viſible Government by which he is made known to the world, is known by his Ordinances, Government of his Houſe, (as our Courts at Weſtminſter, Seſſions, and Aſſizes, ſhew our Kings Government) with the Profeſſion of the Chriſtian Faith, and converſation of Chriſtians accordingly. He is faithful in his houſe, Heb. 3.6. that Houſe is his Church, which he builds, not the Commonwealth; qua ſic.
3ly. To determine a Form of Government, argues more Soveraignty, more Perfection, more Wiſdom in the ſupream Governour, than to appoint only an unformed Government; as it were a meer materiae prima.
If a Prince give a Charter to a Corporation, a Patent to a Colony, he appoints the form of their Government. He that gives the form in other things, gives the perfection of the thing. Chriſts Form in the Church carries authority, and hath an awe upon the hearts of Believers; this notion brings Chriſt in his wiſdom and Soveraignty below an earthly Prince.
4ly. Dr. Stillingfleet hath affirmed Chriſt hath appointed a form of Government in his Church; for whereas the Jeſuit is pleading for the Monarchical form of the Church-Government, becauſe wiſe men have thought that to be beſt; the Doctor anſwers, What is this to the proving what Government Chriſt hath appointed in his Church? for that is the beſt Government of the Church, not which Philoſophers and Politicians have thought beſt, but which our Saviour hath appointed in his word. Ration. Account, p. 464. then Chriſt hath appointed a form in his word, (and I hope that is Jure Divino) elſe the Jeſuit is not anſwered. We need no more proof.
2. For the ſecond Queſt. What then is that form? A. I ſhall lay ſeveral Propoſitions, and clear them by Scripture.
Firſt Prop. In all Churches in the New Teſtament, where we read of Elders, we read of ſeveral Elders in one Church; we never read but of one Elder in a Church, that I call to mind.
1. In the Church of Jeruſalem; one Church, but divers Elders, Act. 15.6, 23, v. & 16. ch. 4.
2ly. In the Church of the Romans, one Church, but ſeveral Elders, as Rom. 12.6, &c.
3ly. In the Church at Antioch, one Church, but more Elders, Act. 13.1.
4ly. In the Church of Corinth there were divers Elders, witneſs the Schiſm.
5ly. In the Church of Epheſus, divers Elders, Act. 20.17.
6ly. In the Church of Philippi were ſeveral Elders, Phil. 1.1. So Polycarpus's Epiſtle to the Church declares.
7ly. In the Church of the Coloſſians, ſeveral Elders, Col. 1.7. & 4.17. Epaphras, and Archippus, we are ſure of; the Dutch ſay Oneſimus alſo, from Ch. 4.9.
8ly. In the Church of the Theſſalonians were ſeveral Elders, 1 Theſ. 5.12. Let any man that oppoſes me produce one Church where there was but one ſingle Paſtor; though if it were ſo, it will not ſave us; for the Churches then had the Apoſtles living among them, and could help that ſingle Paſtor, if the Church were but new planted.
9ly. In Act 14.24. The Apoſtles ordained them Elders (not an Elder) in every Church. Mr. Thorndike, one of your own, joining this Text with Tit. 1.5. croſſes Dr. Stillingfleet's gloſs on the Text, i. e. ſaith the Doctor, no Church wanted an Elder, not that every Church had more Elders; but Mr. Thorndike thus, not meaning one Elder in a place, but Presbyteries, Colledg of Presbyters, with common advice to order the Churches planted in thoſe cities. This agrees with the plain Gramar of the Text; 2. with eight examples I gave before; 3ly. The Syriack is full for our ſenſe.
The Doctor while he labours to darken this Text, forgets himſelf ſtrangely; for p. 239. He lays this for a foundation to clear the Apoſtolical practiſe viz. that the Apoſtles in framing Churches did obſerve the cuſtoms of the Jewiſh Synagogues. And p. 248. Having cleared that there was a peculiar form of Government in the Synagogues, and that the Apoſtles copied out the Government of the Chriſtian Churches by them. Now p. 429. he tells us there were divers Rulers in a Synagogue, is evident from Act. 13.15. he ſuppoſes, Ten wiſe men did jointly concur for ruling the affairs of the Synagogue. p. 250. ſo many Elders to make a Bench. Strange the Doctor ſhould forget his foundation!
For Act. 20.17. Dr. Stillingfleet, Dr. Hammond, with Irenaeus, darken that Text. I might have ſhown how croſs Dr. Hammond and Irenaeus are one to another. Forſooth the Biſhops of Aſia (not only the Elders of Epheſus) were ſent for according to Hammond. Grotius is clear againſt Hammond, de Imper. p. 343, 393.
But I ſhould anſwer thus:
1. Conſider how many miles Philippi was diſtant from Jeruſalem, the way Paul ſailed, &c. according to Bunting, who gives an account of all the miles from Port to Port that Paul ſailed, it was two thouſand one hundred and fifty ſix miles, if he miſtake not.
2ly. Conſider how many days between the Feaſt of Unleavened bread, and Pentecoſt, for Paul to ſail theſe miles.
3ly. What time Paul ſet ſail from Philippi.
4ly. How many days he ſtayed in ſeveral places, all which I had caſt up.
5ly. When he came at Miletum, thirty days at leaſt were ſpent, he had but twenty days; of theſe he ſtays eight days by the way; beſides two days journey going and coming between Miletum and Epheſus, as they reckon it; from Miletum to Jeruſalem 844 miles, according to Bunting; he ſtays at Philips houſe, Act. 21.8, 10. At Miletum, Act. 20.16. He haſted if poſſible, &c. yet now he ſends for the Biſhops of Aſia; this is the fancy of that learned man.
Beſides if he can prove that foreign in the 17 verſ. and foreign, and foreign, v. 28. be words of the Plural Number, then his great learning may perſwade us to ſomething.
For his other notion on Phil. 1.1. the Jewiſh and Chriſtian Biſhop, Dr. Stillingfleet hath anſwered him. I add,
1. In matter of fact; one would think Chryſoſtom and Ambroſe ſhould know a little better than Dr. Hammond of yeſterday, and they could have given other anſwers than they have done upon the Text.
2ly. When Paul, Phil. 4.15. ſaith, O ye Philippians; he means the ſame perſons in Ch. 1.4. but if one in France ſhould write to the French Church in London, would they write, O ye Londoners, they are but ſtrangers, as the Jews in Philippi.
3. In the Church of Theſſalonica there were Elders, 1 Theſ. 5.12. but none Jewiſh Chriſtian Biſhops, 1 Theſ. 1.9. Theſe turned from Idols, &c. not ſo the Jews. So in Epheſus ſeveral Elders, but no Jewiſh diſtinct Elders, Epheſ. 2.11, 12. make that clear.
I could give more anſwers.—
Prop. 2. The Elders in the Goſpel-churches had all of them Miniſterial power committed to them alike. I mean the ordinary teaching Elders. So Biſhop Jewel, If it be a hereſie to ſay that by the Scriptures of God, a Biſhop and Prieſt are all one, then many of the Fathers (whom he mentions) yea Paul himſelf muſt be a Heretick. Dr. Stillingfleet hath yielded this, and we deſire no more; the truth is the ſame if he be changed; this queſtion Learned Pens have diſcuſſed, I let it alone.
Prop. 3. This equality of power which the Elders received from Chriſt did continue all the time the Apoſtles lived.
This I think Dr. Stillingfleet yields, p. 275. the Epiſtle of Clemens to the Corinthians after the Apoſtles time, and of Polycarpus to the Philippians, declare the ſame.
The Teachers, Act. 13.1, 2, 3. did Ordain; ſo ſeveral of the ancient and modern Divines, Lutherans and Calviniſts, ſo underſtand it; there is a full definition of Ordination. If this were Peter's, ſee where is that Biſhop, had there been an Apoſtle, he had been mentioned.
The Church of Corinth ought to have Excommunicated the Inceſtuous perſon, though Paul had not ſent to them, or here joined with them. Chryſoſtom on the Text ſpeaks fully to the point.
Prop. 4. The number of the Elders increaſing in the Church by reaſon of the increaſe of the Believers; One of theſe Elders, and moſt probably that Elder which was firſt Ordained by the Apoſtles in the Church, had a Primacy, as to order and honour, but not as to power and juriſdiction over his fellow Elders.
The Text commands it, 1 Cor. 14. ult. Order muſt be, and where there is a Plurality, to avoid confuſion there muſt be one.
If there be Twenty Juſtices of the Peace in a County, and the King add Ten more, it doth not alter the form of Government: At the Seſſions one muſt be for order ſake the Judg of the Seſſions, and the other Juſtices do not devolve the exerciſe of their power upon him, nor hath he more power than the reſt, every one exerts his own power: So in the Parliament, a Speaker muſt be, but no ſuperiority of power, nor devolving the exerciſe of the power of the other Members upon him: ſo it is in the Church.
That Eminent Servant of Chriſt, Mr. Thomas Hooker, alloweth of an Epiſcopus Humanus in the Conſociation of Churches, to moderate the actions of the Aſſembly, to propound things to be agitated, to gather voices, to pronounce the Sentence which paſſed by common approbation. Reaſon and order ſaith he, forceth ſuch a kind of proceeding, Survey Chu. Diſc. p. 1. Cap. 2. p. 22, 23. only the conſtancy of it he denies from experience. There is the pinch.
Prop. 5. This Primacy (I humbly conceive) did continue in that Elder, during his life, (unleſs for ſome default he were caſt out by his fellow Elders) I ſhall wrangle with none of my brethren, nor differ from them in affection about it, but I ſhall ground my notion on the Angel of the Church, Apoc. 2. &c.
1ſt. The word doth not connote any ſuperiority of power over the reſt, no more than when the King wrote from Breda, or at any other time to the Speaker of the Houſe of Lords, or Commons, or to the Judg of the Seſſions, did or do argue any ſuperiority of power, but only order; what Iſidore ſaith of the word Angelus, Angelorum vox eſt nomen Officii, ne naturae,—cum mittuntur vocantur Angeli. So here, all Elders are ſent, Rom. 10.15. if ſent, then they are Angels. Superiority of power among the ordinary teaching Elders, was the firſt ſtep Antichriſt took to get into his Chair.
2ly. The word is to be taken individually, not collectively. So famous Reynolds againſt Hart, p. 314. So Beza, Piſcator, Paraeus, and many others. The inſtances our brethren give to prove collectively, ſome do not prove it; others, as the Ram, the Goat in Daniel, the Antichriſtian Beaſt, &c. in the Revel. I humbly conceive give away the Cauſe, (for there was ever one ſuperiour in power), which I will not yield.
3ly. That this perſon was during life, &c. The Argument brought againſt it is no Scripture, but humane Prudence from experience: ſo Mr. Hooker. To which I ſay, keep out but ſuperiority of power, and the danger is avoided: and no doubt while the Churches kept that out, this form of government carried on things very well. You cannot then charge me with being croſs to Scripture in my opinion.
2ly. Since you cannot prove me ſo, then I prove my ſenſe from the practice of the primitive Churches, of which we have the Hiſtories, which to me is of great force in proving the ſenſe of a Text, that ſeems very fair, and have no other Scripture to contradict that ſenſe: how much the Hiſtories of them ſpeak of a ſingle perſon, who is ignorant? and that during life. Ambroſe (or whoever it was, as ancient as he) in his Comment on the 4 Epheſ. ſpeaks home to the point, ſee Theſ. Salmar. p. 3. p. 299.
3ly. By the Seven Epiſtles to the Churches, I find him in his Primacy, do you prove it was but for one or two Seſſions, not during his life. Certainly that Angel was well known in the Church to whom Chriſt wrote: in ſome Churches commending him, in others diſcommending; though its true, the Epiſtles concerned the whole Church.
4ly. This Angel is not the Moderator in a conſociation of Churches, as Reverend Mr. Hooker ſpeaks of, whoſe conſtancy in the place may be bad, but the Primate among the Elders of one particular Church: ſo that his fear does not reach us.
Q. 3. For the Jus Divinum of this.
This form Dr. Stillingfleet cannot deny the Apoſtles did conſtitute in the Churches; but it ſeems the Apoſtolical practice, though they were guided by the Spirit of Chriſt, is not ſufficient to make a Jus Divinum, a poſitive Law; for it is demanded.
1ſt. There was no poſitive Law for the change of the ſeventh-day Sabbath; but yet the Dr. tells us, the Apoſtolical practice is ſufficient, for they were guided by an Infallible Spirit, p. 12, 13. If ſo, in a matter of far greater moment than in this, I hope, it is ſufficient, the Dr. cannot deny it.
2ly. Dr. Stillingfleet denies the 18. Mat. 15, 16. proves Excommunication: Then what poſitive Law hath he for Excommunications, Deacons, Ordination of Church-Officers?
3ly. The Apoſtolical form did beſt conduce to the end of Government, which the Dr. urges much againſt the Jeſuit, Rat. Account, p. 462.
I pray compare that form then, and our form now; under which did, or do ignorance and prophaneneſs moſt abound?
4ly. If not ſo, then one great end of the Acts of the Apoſtles, which Oecumenius calls the Evangelium Spiritus ſancti) is loſt.
A Lapide in his Preface to that Book ſpeaks excellently.
5ly. I ſet up this Form; you demand my authority; I anſwer, It was the Form they ſet up who were guided by an Infallible Spirit, and Chriſt owned the Form in writing to it. You ſet up your Form different from it; I demand of you, ſhew me your authority, and ſee which is beſt.
6ly. If Apoſtolical practiſe be not ſufficient, then you may to Rome for a Form, for ought I know, I know no ſtop.
As to the Author of the Book Samaritaniſm, I am ſure the Author was nothing a-kin to the good Samaritan; for he ſhews himſelf a man of a vinegar-ſpirit, his diſcourſe as to Church-Government, is built upon this foundation, That Form of Government which appeared for hundreds of years, firſt, only, and was de facto Inſtituted of God, that only hath Divine right to warrant it, p. 10, 11. In p. 37. I find this was Epiſcopacy, but this is very falſe; theſe three terms, firſt, only, and hundreds of years, are not found in Epiſcopacy. The firſt Governours had power over Biſhops and Archbiſhops, if any ſuch Creatures were.
2ly. They were not the only Governours, for the Presbyters governed while the Apoſtles lived.
3ly. The firſt Governours did not laſt hundreds of years.
4ly. The firſt Government was not confined to a narrow Dioceſs, as Epiſcopacy was. In Auguſtine's time there were in one Province under Carthage of the Catholicks and Donatiſts above nine hundred Biſhops, but their firſt Governours had all Nations for their Dioceſs, and that made their Government Apostolical. I am ſure there is none ſuch now.
Again, Presbyters were firſt before Biſhops; witneſs your own Tribe, that tell the world, Epiſcopacy was ſet up to prevent Schiſm among Presbyters after the Schiſm in Corinth among the Presbyters.
According to this Author, there is no Government at all in the Church; for theſe three Terms are found in no form of Government now; therefore I leave him.
As for his fine language wherewith he courts us, as Jack-ſtraws, Fools, Knaves, Peeviſh, &c. this Samaritans Oil and Wine, we bear it, the Diſciple is not above his Maſter.
There is another Queſtion of very great conſequence, but for theſe times not ſo uſeful, therefore I will only ſtate it, and give mens opinion about it, and leave it, though I had prepared ſomething to ſpeak to it.
Q. Whether every particular Congregation conſiſting of one teaching Elder, and a number of viſible Chriſtians, be a particular Church, according to the New Teſtament? or may not, yea, ought not ſeveral particular Congregations unite, to make up one particular Church?
By a Church I mean an Organical Church, inveſted with all the power and exerciſe of the Keys within it ſelf, both quo ad actum primum & ſecundum; ſuch were the eight Churches I mentioned before.
Learned and pious Ames, Med. Theol. l. 1. c. 39. tells us, That a Church in the New Teſtament is a Parochial Church; ſuch a company or congregation as ordinarily meet in one place to worſhip God. (Sure I am that ordinarily there is but one teaching-Elder in ſuch a Church.) And this Church hath as much power as the National Church of the Jews met together. Compare his 16 & 18 Theſes; great uſe he makes of the words, foreign, 1 Cor. 11.20. ſo doth a reverend Brother, who knew my opinion, quote it with a little warmth; but my good Brother muſt prove there was but one Teaching-Elder in that Church, elſe his argument will be guilty of Ignoratio Elenchi; five anſwers more I would have given.
Mr. Tho. Hooker giving the true ſenſe of Independency, ſaith, it imports thus much, Every particular congregation, rightly constituted, and compleated, hath ſufficiency in it ſelf to exerciſe all the Ordinances of Christ. Surv. Ch. Diſ. part 2. pag. 80. But then it ſeems it muſt be compleated; and to this compleating are required a Paſtor, Teacher, Ruling-Elder, Deacon, one at leaſt of all theſe. So pag. 4. ib. and without theſe, though a particular Congregation may be called a true Church, as a man that hath but one eye, one arm or leg, may be ſtill defined Animal rationale, as having a reaſonable ſoul; yet he is but maimed, no intire man; ſuch is that Church, pag. 2. Ibid. I pray how many ſuch Congregations have we?
The Synod held at Boston in New England, Septemb. 10. 1679, the laſt year, pag. 10, 11. calling for a full ſupply of Officers in the Churches, ſpeak thus: The defect of the Churches on this account is very lamentable, there being in moſt of the Churches only one Teaching Officer, for the burden of the whole Congregation to lye upon. The Lord Chriſt would not have inſtituted Paſtors, Teachers, Ruling Elders (nor the Apoſtles have ordained Elders in every Church, Act. 14.23. Tit. 1.5.) if he had not ſeen there was need of them for the good of his people; and therefore for men to think they can do well enough without them, is both to break the ſecond Commandment, and to reflect upon the wiſdom of Chriſt, as if he did appoint unneceſſary Officers in his Church. Thus the Synod.
Half the queſtion then is gained, the Independents yield it, men worthy to be liſtned to, for they take up the word of God for their only Rule. I know there is a great queſtion about the Ruling Elder, but I am not to meddle with it now.
Our Brethren of the Presbyterian judgment, I ſuppoſe, yield the queſtion, they may and ought to unite, to make up one Governing Church; but I do not fully underſtand their meaning. Suppoſe twenty Pariſhes and Congregations that meet together to worſhip God, and twenty Miniſters belonging to them, are theſe twenty Pariſhes diſtinct Churches as to Word and Sacraments, ſo that he that is Paſtor in one Church, hath nothing to do in another Pariſh, as to feeding them with Word and Sacraments, but as to Government and Juriſdiction one Miniſter with the reſt of the Claſſis have power over them all? if this be the meaning, I am not ſatisfied in it.
Dr. Stilling fleet hath declared his judgment, they may unite. I wiſh he had pleaſed to have opened his mind fully about it.
If he will yield but this, That constitution of a Church wherein a Pastor cannot poſſibly feed with Word and Sacraments, watch over and govern his flock according to Christ, be it Dioceſan or Parochial, that constitution is not according to Christ, and conſequently unlawful, (as Scripture-light, and nature's light will prove it) I ſhould, it may be, come up to him, to perform our duty by Substitutes; this may pleaſe them who make their own brains, not Gods word, their rule, and ſuch we little regard.
God hath now brought me to old age in my Pilgrimage; divers diſputes about Church-work and Government I have read; abſurd, unſcriptural practices in Churches I have ſeen; woful diſorders and wretched effects I have heard and known; great ſcandal, but ſo circumſtanced, that a ſingle Paſtor could not proceed by Mat. 18.15, &c. to remove it; I have met with one of the ableſt Divines in England, and exerciſed in Government, was of the ſame opinion with me, all ariſing from this notion of a ſingle Paſtor with ſuch a people making a Church; and all which miſchiefs might be avoided, if the uniting of ſeveral particular Congregations into one particular Church were admitted, which Scripture-examples, and Scripture-reaſons will ſufficiently juſtifie.