Answer to Stillingfleets Irenicum, Chapter 1
CHAP. I.
THIS Book, though set off with the specious Title of an Irenicum, and carrying in its Face the pretence of a Laudable Design, viz. the healing of the dangerous Wounds and sad Divisions of the Church at this time prevailing, will, upon due Examination, I suppose, be found an unsuitable Salve for these Sores, and to mend our rents, as they say Tinkers do, by making a greater rent instead of mending a lesser. For instead of a Debate about particular Forms of Government, it bringeth in another Debate, whether there be any Form instituted of Christ, whether we must search the will of Christ about managing Church-Affaires in his Word, or be content with what is the will of man? Which Controversie is like to be harder in determining, and more stiffly agitated than the other; for sure it is harder to perswade them, who would take the word of God for their rule, that Christ hath not appointed any one Form of Government in his House, than that he hath not appointed this or that. By this device we are cast loose of all hold where we may fix, and there shall be no end of Contention, at least among them, who consult so as to determine some one Form of all these, which are thought to be lawful; and when they have determined, the People, on whom they impose it, have a very unsure bottom to settle their Consciences upon in this matter, that doth so nearly concern Religion, to wit, nothing but the Judgment and Will of man, which is often wrong, and led by Interest, and at best is fallible and cannot guide us certainly in that, which pleaseth God. Wherefore this Authors Opinion seems to be a cutting of the knot with Alexander, and casting all loose, when he cannot so untie it, as to hold fast the exercise of Christ's Kingly Power in Governing his Church. Neither is this Opinion new, as the Author seemeth to imply; for it was long since maintained, and largely propugned by Mr. Hooker in his Ecclesiastical Polity, and solidly refuted by Mr. Rutherford in his Divine Right of Church-Government; and indeed hath always been and still is the main Pillar to uphold Episcopacy in these Nations, it being the most ready and plausible way for them, who would wreath this Iron Yoke on the Necks of their Brethren, when they cannot shew them Christ's Authority for it, to take the determining of the Case out of his hand, and to put it in the hand of the King, and then to press it from his Authority with Fire and Sword. And indeed this Opinion is a most colourable excuse for the unfaithful complyance of them, who would fain hold their places under any Form of Church-Government, that shall lye uppermost; for so they shall be sure never to cross Authority, and not to cross the Interest of their own Back and Belly; and how much mischief this piece hath done this way, is too evident; seeing men, that incline to comply, are satisfyed with shadows instead of substantial reason, to put off troublesome Conscience. Yet among them, who are conscientiously zealous for any one way of Government, I suppose, the Lot of this Author will be that, which is ordinary to such unhappy Peace-Makers, as sell truth, or some part of it by an over-reach of condescendency, and that in Gods matters, not their own, (in which we must bargain as hard Merchants do in worldly things,) to redeem peace; for I suppose men of all perswasions will be about his Ears: For that which I am perswaded to be the truth of God in point of Church-Government, viz▪ Government by Ministers acting in parity, and ruling Elders met in Congregational, Classical, Provincial and National Presbyteries or Assemblies; it is more easily upheld against his undermining Engines, than any of the other Forms; for the least of his Book is levelled against it in particular and what he saith against it, I hope, will appear not to have great strength; yea, I believe, that out of what he hath said, this truth may be strongly confirmed; which I shall thus essay in a word. He acknowledgeth and stifly maintaineth, that Christ hath given power, not only of teaching, but of ruling his Church, to all and every one of his Ministers; and that he hath not given more power to one of them than another, nor made them subject or subordinate to one another. Whence it clearly followeth that Presbyterian Government (I mean the parity of Ministers and their Association) is jure divino, ex confesso; and that Prelacy is an addition to it, made jure humano. And hence it followeth, that this addition is unlawful, except he can prove that Christ hath given a power to men to make them unequal, whom he hath made equal; to subject one to another of them, to whom Christ hath given equal power; to restrain, yea and take quite away the exercise of ruling power in some of them, to whom Christ hath given it as much as to others; and to enlarge that power in some, to whom Christ hath given no more than to others. Which I am sure he will never be able to do: Yea further it's confessed by him, that Christ hath instituted the Office of Presbyters; and that he hath not instituted the Office of Prelates, ruling over Presbyters: Wherefore he must either say, that the Church hath power to institute new Offices, which I hope he will not assert, and I am sure he cannot prove; or that Prelacy is unlawful. For, that a Prelate is another Officer than a Presbyter, is undeniable, because the one is ruled by the other. Now these of the same Office cannot be ruled by or subordinate to one another; as common sense and reason will teach.
§. 2. But to come to the Book it self. My design is not a full Refutation, but some brief Animadversions for private satisfaction, and mine own establishment in these truths, that he endeavoureth to shake: Neither do I intend to meddle with the whole, but only to cull out these passages, that relate to Presbyterian Government, and any that might infer the unsetling of that or any part of it.
§. 3. The first thing, that I meet with, to be disproved, is p. 2. where he asserteth a Principle, that will not only shake our Faith (if it be received) in the point of Church-Government; but (which I hope he doth not intend) will unsettle us in most points of Christian Religion. His Principle is this, That Difference in Opinion about a point, and probable Arguments brought on both hands by wise and able men; if it be not a matter of necessity to Salvation, gives men ground to think, that a final decision of the matter in Controversie was never intended as a necessary means for the Peace and Vnity of the Church of God. His Opinion in this he setteth down in fewer and clearer words in the Contents of ch. 1. things, saith he, necessary for the Churches peace must be clearly revealed; the Form of Church Government is not so, as appears by the remaining Controversie about it. I shall first shew the danger and falsehood of this Principle, and then try the strength of what he saith for the establishment of it. And 1. I argue thus: This Assertion destroyeth it self; for if no point, not necessary to Salvation, be so sure, that we must necessarily hold it, in order to peace; then this his Assertion falleth under the same condition, and needeth not to be maintain'd, for it is not needful to Salvation; I hope, they will go to Heaven, that are not of his mind in this; and I am confident he doth not think it so clear, that no wise and able men will controvert with him about it; and if it be needless in order to the Churches peace, why is it here laid down as the first stone of the Foundation, on which he buildeth his Irenicum? but it fareth here with our Author, as it doth with all other Abetters of Scepticism; they attain at least so far their end, as they make men question that Opinion, that they labour to establish, by perswading them to question every thing.
§. 4. Secondly, There is no cause at all, why the Author should except from the uncertainty, here asserted, things, that are of necessity to Salvation; for, if we are to think, that the Lord hath so clearly revealed things not needful to Salvation, which are needful to peace in the Church; much rather are we to think so of things needful to Salvation (which also cannot but be necessary to peace; for we can have no peace with them, that destroy the Foundation.) For it hath hitherto been a received Principle, that things of necessity to Salvation are revealed with more clearness, than other things. And, though Papists have laboured to cast a Mist upon Scripture discovery in both sorts of things, that they might take all power to themselves over the Truths of God, and Consciences of men, in determining what is truth; (as Dr. Stillingfleet would darken the discovery of the circa-fundamentals of Religion, that he might put the power of determining these things in the hand of the Magistrate) yet Protestants have ever firmely maintained, that however the Scripture speaketh darkly in some things, not essential; yet that the light of it is most clear in things necessary to Salvation. They are not then of this mans mind, who will have the things, that do not so nearly relate to Salvation, but are needful to peace, so clearly revealed, that there can remain no Controversie about them among wise and able men, but excepteth from this necessity, things of necessity to Salvation. From what hath been said, I argue thus against Dr. Stillingfleet's Principle: If any things not necessary to Salvation be so necessary to be clearly revealed, that we are to look upon them as not Christ's Truth, if there remain a Controversie about them, managed with specious Arguments on both sides among wise and able men, much more things necessary to Salvation must be thus clearly revealed; so that there is no truth in them, if they be so controverted; but the consequent is most false and absurd, and overturneth all the Foundations of our Religion: for have not the Arrian, Soecinian, Arminian, and Popish Controversies been managed, yea and are they not managed by the Adversaries of Truth, with Learning even to admiration. We must then, according to this principle, not take either part of these debates for truth, but think that the Lord hath determined nothing in them, and we must leave it to men to determine in them what they please, and must embrace that. Is not this a fine device to cast loose all, to bring in Scepticism instead of Faith, to make way for a subtle Sophister to nullifie any truth, by disputing speciously against it? Yet this we are to bless the Lord for, that the overturners of the Government of Christ's house, have no other means to cast it loose by, but these, that do also cast loose all our Religion: which I hope will be a consideration to fix this truth the better in the minds of them, who are serious and intelligent.
§. 5. Thirdly, If these things not necessary to salvation, that speciously on both hands are controverted, be not needful to be determined in our consciences, in order to the Churches peace, I ask the Author of this Assertion, What things of that nature are needful to the Churches peace, that we hold an opinion about them? Or are there any things such? or must we hesitate about all the circa-fundamentals in Religion, and look on them as indifferences determinable by men, if we will not be guilty of disturbing the peace of the Church? I hope this good man will not say so: and yet it would necessarily follow out of this principle maintained by him; for I believe he cannot instance in many things (scarce if any) that are not of necessity to salvation, which are not controverted, and that with specious pretexts. For learned men, when they erre, use not to come off so bluntly, as barely to say, it is so, or I think so; but they bring plausible Reasons, and those often pretended to be drawn from Scripture, for their foulest errours. If then we receive this principle, we must not think it needful to the Churches peace, to determine whether there be two Sacraments or seven; whether there be Purgatory; whether we are to pray to Saints departed; whether there be power of Censure in Church-men; or if all Church-power be in the Magistrate; whether the Pope be the head of the Church; &c. for all these, and such-like, are controverted; and there are colourable Arguments for the Errours, that men maintain in these points. If this, our Author will not assert, what reason is there, that he should maintain, that the Form of Church-Government is not determined by men for the Churches peace; and that because there are Controversies about what is the Form appointed by Christ.
§. 6. But I come now to examine what the Author hath to say for this Assertion of his. We cannot, saith he, with any shew of reason imagine, that Christ, who hath made it a necessary duty for all the Members of the Church to endeavour the Peace and Vnity of it, should suspend the performance of that duty upon a matter of Opinion, which when many have used their utmost endeavour to satisfie themselves about, they yet find, that those very grounds, which they are most inclinable to build their Judgments upon, are either wholly rejected by others as wise and able as themselves, or else, it may be, they erect a far different Fabrick upon the very same Foundations. Ans. 1. The weakness, if not wickedness of this Argument will easily appear, by making an Assumption to the Proposition here set down, and considering what will necessarily follow, which I shall thus perform. That Christ is true God, is a matter of Opinion, which, when we have used our utmost endeavours to satisfie our selves about it, we yet find that those very grounds, which we are most inclinable to build our Judgments upon, are either wholly rejected by others, as wise and able as we, or else that they erect on them a far different Fabrick; for it's well known that the Socinians, who are men of Wisdom and Ability, though it be unsanctifyed; and especially Grotius (the wonder of his Age for Learning) though yet he profess the truth in this point: That, I say, they do wholly reject all the grounds, on which we do build our Faith in this point; and that on many of them they endeavour to erect a contrary Fabrick. It doth then follow vi syllogisticâ (supposing our Author's Proposition) that we cannot with any shew of reason think that Christ would have us suspend the performance of our duty in endeavouring the peace of the Church on this, That Christ is true God; and so we must by this Argument yield this Truth as a matter determinable by men, rather than hold an Opinion in it with the loss of peace in the Church. I hope the Author will not own this Conclusion; wherefore he ought not to own that his Assertion, out of which it is clearly deducible.
§. 7. Ans. 2. There is very great reason for that, for which he denyeth all shew of reason; for some matters of Opinion of that condition, which he describeth, are the Truths of God, as is clear from what hath been said; but we are to suspend the endeavouring of the Churches peace, rather than part with any Truth of God, or then we should yield it upto men's determinations, as if it were none of his truths.
Ans. 3. When we are to judge of the validity of the grounds, on which we build our opinion about truth▪ it is not the thoughts of men as wise and able as we, that must determine us; for, we know, the wisest may mistake, when they, who are less wise, may hit the truth through the grace of God: but we must consider whether these grounds be the dictates of the Spirit of God in his word: and if they be, we must not be shaken in mind by the contrary assertions of men, though never so wise, yea and holy too. I grant the opinions of such should make us search carefully; but they must not hinder our assent to the truth of God. And this is a valid reason, why we are to suspend our endevours of peac on some matters of opinion, though contradicted by wise and able men.
§. 8. He addeth, That it is not consistent with Christs Wisdom to leave the peace of his Church at the mercy of men's private opinions; which are most uncertain; for it is not expected, that all men should be of the same mind. Ans. 1. It is too great rashness to think that Christ cannot be a wise Governour of his Church, unless he take courses for its setlement, that our Wisdom thinketh meet. I hope Christ may wisely govern his Church and yet not leave it to Men to determine, what shall be the form of it's Government, which yet cannot be, if this reason prove that, which it is brought for. 2. We may easily grant the conclusion of this argument, without giving the least advantage to the assertion, which it is brought to prove. It is true, Christ hath not left the peace of his Church at the mercy of men's private opinions; viz. So as that there can be no peace in the Church, except all men agree in opinion about all things: for peace may be maintained among dissenting Brethren, by harmony of affection, mutual forbearance, and a prudent managing and concealing of our opinion, so far, as it may be without sin: and all this may be done without denying that, which we differ about, to be determined by Christ; and asserting it to be a thing left indifferent. And if this be not particable, either through the Nature of the truth, that we dissent about; in that it is practical, or so important that it cannot be concealed; or through the obstinacy, or wrong zeal of dissenters; the Lord hath not left his Church without a Remedy even in this case, viz. they who do unreasonably dissent must be censured, or shunned: and if this cannot be done without breach of peace, it is our Lords Wisdom to provide, that we should rather loose Peace then Truth. 3. All that is here said will as well prove, that there is no fixed trnth in any controverted point, though of never so great concernment: for it may be said also in these, that Christ hath not left the peace of his Church at the mercy of Men's private opinions, which are not the same in the most fundamental points. But of this enough.
§. 9. From what hath been said, we may see what fit advice this healer giveth, while he thus saith, p. 3. The only way left for the Churche's setlement and peace, under such variety of apprehensions, concerning the means and method in order to it, is to pitch upon such a foundation, if possible to be found out, whereon the different parties, retaining their private apprehensions, may yet be agreed to carry on the same work in Common, in order to the peace and tranquillity of the Church of God. Hitherto we consent with him, and wish he would help us to such a Foundation, so as it self be founded on the Word of God and not contrary to it. But he goeth on. Which, saith he, cannot be by leaving all absolutely to follow their own ways; for that were to build a Babel instead of Salem. This also we grant: but that which follows we cannot agree to. It must be then, saith he, by convincing men, that neither of these ways to Peace and Order, which they contend about is necessary by way of Divine command (though some be as a means to an end) but which particular way or form it must be, is wholly left to the prudence of those, in whose Power and Trust it is to see the Peace of the Church secured on lasting Foundations. If this be a fit way of healing Church-rents, then those Churches are in the best way to peace, who cast away the Bible, and will not look there what God hath commanded: because some may say, he hath commanded this, and others, he hath commanded that: and so refer all controversies to be determined by men, as supposing nothing to be determined by God. And indeed this is the basis that the peace of the Popish Church standeth upon: and I believe no Jesuit would have given another advice, than this, toward the setling of our divided condition. What? Must we say that neither way is commanded of God, whether it be so or not? when we can prove from Scripture that this is Christ's Institution, that not, but a device aud usurpation of men; must we yield this our ground? and leave the whole matter to men's wills, as being the readiest way to peace. If this be his cure for Church-Divisions, I believe they, who take the word of God for their rule, especially in Church-matters, will think it worse than the Disease. Every way to peace is not a good way, otherwise there were no duty at any time to contend for the truth, once delivered to the Saints, Jude 3.
§. 10. I do not dissent from the learned Author in his Determinations about the Nature of Right and Divine Right, but must examine some of the Principles, from which he will have a Divine Right to be inferred. Wherefore as to the rest of the first Chapter, I first take notice, that what he largely discourseth from p. 6. to p. 11. concerning the lawfulness of that, which is not forbidden by God; however it may be granted sano sensu (on which I now insist not;) yet it doth not reach his point, unless he prove that Christ hath determined no species of Government; for if he hath determined one, then all other inconsistent with it are eo ipso prohibited: Wherefore, though we grant to him, that ratio regiminis ecclesiastici is juris naturalis; yet we cannot grant, except he proves it, that the modus of it is juris divini permissivi; that is to say, it is juris humani; but we assert it to be juris divini, partim naturalis, partim positivi, viz. in respect of the divers parts, of which that Form is made up, which are approved of God.
§. 11. To make up an Obligation, whereby we are bound to a thing as duty, we assert with him, that there is required Legislation and Promulgation of it. But what he saith of the way of Promulgation of Divine Positive Laws, that is necessary to lay an Obligation on us, I cannot fully agree to. P. 12. He asserteth that whatsoever binds Christians as an universal standing Law, must be clearly revealed as such, and laid down in Scripture in such evident terms, as all who have their senses exercised therein, may discern it to have been the will of Christ, that it should perpetually oblige all Believers to the Worlds end; as is clear in the case of Baptism and the Lords Supper. But because the learned Author could not but see, how obvious it was to every one to argue against this Assertion from the instances of the change of the Sabbath, and Infant Baptism, which he acknowledgeth to be Christs Will and Law established, and yet not thus revealed; therefore he laboureth to obviate that Argument by this exception; (to wit) that there is not the same necessity for a particular and clear revelation in the alteration of a Law unrepealed in some circumstances of it, as there is for the establishing of a new Law: The former (saith he) may be done by a different practice of persons infallibly guided; as in the case of the change of the Sabbath and Infant Baptism; not so the latter. To this I reply a few things. 1. It had been good, if, in an Assertion so fundamental to his whole discourse, and so positive for the clearness of Divine Laws, he himself had used more clearness; there is no small muddiness and ambiguity in his expressions, which I must a little remove. And first, when he saith, that Christs Laws must be revealed clearly as such; either he meaneth (as Hooker, Eccles. polit. defending this Opinion of our Author's, expresseth it) that they must be set down in the Form of Laws. But it is too great presumption to prescribe to him, how he should word the intimations of his will to his People; or in what mode or form he should speak to them: His will manifested to us is that which obligeth us; and this may be without such a Form. Or he meaneth, that Christs Laws must be so clearly revealed, as that we may come to know, that this we are to do, and that to forbear, and that he would have us to take notice of it as his Will; and this we agree to, and do maintain, that the Form of Church-Government is thus revealed. Another ambiguity is, that he requireth them to be laid down in such evident terms as all who have their senses exercised therein, may discern them to be his will to oblige us. If he mean that they, who have competent understanding and means, and do seriously search the truth in these things (which, I suppose, is the meaning of having their senses exercised in them) may for the objective evidence of the things come to know them; this we do not deny; if he mean, that such will certainly be convinced of them, and that there can be no impediment insuperable by them, neither in the Object, nor in their blindness or prejudice, or other Infirmity or Disadvantage that they lye under, which may make them, that they cannot see that to be the will of Christ, which is so revealed; this we utterly deny. Now this latter, not the former, must be his meaning, because it is nothing to the purpose, which I will not impute to so learned a man; for what is not so revealed, is not revealed at all, seeing it is unintelligible by defect of objective light; now, to say that Christ's Laws must be thus revealed, is to say that they must be promulgated, some way or other; which was never questioned by any; and maketh nothing for his design, viz. that Christs Laws must be so revealed, as that the disputes about them shall be taken away. Yea, he cannot mean this, for the change of any Circumstance of an old Law must at least be thus revealed, else it is not revealed at all; and yet he requireth another sort of Revelation of new Laws, as appeareth from what hath been said.
§. 12. 2. If this Assertion thus explained were true, there should remain no more Controversie among serious and learned men about any of the Laws of Christ; for such have their senses exercised in these things: Wherefore they may (if we believe this Author) know such to be Christs Laws, and therefore cannot be in an Errour about them. But how absurd this is, sad Experience maketh too evident: Is it not a Controversie whether Christ hath appointed seven or but two Sacramentst? whether he hath commanded us to pray to Saints departed? whether Excommunication be by his Law, &c. We must then either say, that Christ hath made no Law in these things; or that men cannot mistake in them; but that they who oppose the truth herein, do oppose that which they know to be Christ's Law, or that Christ hath made and revealed a Law about these things, but these men cannot see it, which is contrary to the Author's Assertion.
3. Is it not enough to bind the Conscience of any, who soberly seek to know what is the good, and perfect, and acceptable will of God, that the Lord in his word hath given some intimation, from which we may gather, that such a thing is his will: Sure, seeing it is his will, that bindeth the Conscience, whatever way we come to the knowledge of this will, we are obliged by it to our duty. Now we may be able, in some cases, to deduce from Scripture such a thing to be the will of God, though it be not set down in such evident terms as are here mentioned, as is clear to any who do consider. 4. There are many points of Truth, or many Credenda, in the Scripture, which want such an Evidence of Revelation, as is here required; which yet we are to believe 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 Scripture Assertions: yea many times Truths are couched in Duties commanded, as Commands also are comprehended in Assertions and Promises. Now if this clearness of terms in the Revelation of the Credenda of Religion be not necessary to bind the Conscience to believe, how is it imaginable, that it should be necessary in the Revelation of the Agenda, to bind the Will to act? seeing the Lord doth as peremptorily require us to believe what he hath said, as to do what he hath commanded. 5. For the exception that he maketh of the changing some Circumstances of old Laws; I see not on what Foundation of reason, the difference between these and new Laws can stand; but that this shift serveth his purpose: For (to take his own instance) supposing a standing Law for a Sabbath, and that the seventh day must be kept: This Circumstance (as he is pleas'd to call it) that not the seventh, but the first day be kept, is really a new law: yea there are here two new laws; one abrogating what was before, and making it no duty to keep the seventh day: another establishing a new, which was not before, and making it a duty to keep the first day. Now if this may be thought no obliging law of Christ without that evidence of revelation, which he talks of, why may not another thing, that was not such before? If we are to look to Apostolick practice as ground sufficient why we should think it Christs will, that we should keep the first day of the week to the Lord; which was not done before; why should we not think the same ground sufficient, why Ministers should rule the Church by a parity of Authority? Yea, reason would say, that there is need of more clearness, in the revelation of Christ's will for altering a standing law in such of it's circumstances as doth annul one duty, and establish another, than for setling that as duty which is altogether new, seeing in the former, we must both know the will of God in abrogating and establishing: in the later we are to know only, that he will stablish such a thing.
§. 13. In his examination of what maketh an unalterable Divine right, I agree to most that he teacheth; only his Postulatum p. 14. one which he buildeth all his assertions, needeth to be a little cleared. He asserteth that nothing can be founded on Divine Right, nor bind Believers as a positive Law, but what may be certainly known to have come from God, with an intention to bind Believers to the Worlds end. Where I only take notice that, though Plerophory in that case be very desirable; yet such certainty is not necessary to our obligation: But so much knowledge of the will of God as may satisfie the Conscience, by Jnclining it to the one hand, and not leaving it absolutely in suspence. If this be not sufficient, we shall take off all obligation of Gods positive laws from most men: for few have plerophorie in most things. I agree with him, that a divine right is built on the law of nature, and on the immutable positive laws of God: also, that these are three good marks of the immutability of divine positive laws, which he bringeth: viz. when the reason of the law remains: when God hath declared such a law never to be changed: when it conduceth to the being of a Society, that he would have to continue. Only I cannot see how these (espeeially the former two marks) do consist with the mutability of that Church government, (in these things we controvert about) which the Apostles practised (no doubt, as being Christs will and law) seeing there is the same reason for parity now, that then was: and Christ hath not said, that he will have it altered in after ages.
§. 14. Page 23. He comes to examine some pretences (as he is pleased to call them) for a divine right. And first, he laboureth to enervate the argument for the divine right of Church-Government, taken from Apostolical practice: of which he promiseth to say more after: but what he here saith, we shall examine. I yield to him, that all Scripture examples do not bind; neither doth any example bind as an example: also, that the rule, whereby we know what examples do bind, is not immediately obligatory, but directive. I grant likewise that in such examples, that which bindeth us, is either the moral nature of the action, or the law commanding us to follow the example. And yet all these concessions yield him no advantage, neither bring our cause any loss: for when he requireth us, who plead for the divine right of a particular form of Church-Government from Apostolical example, to shew either the morality of their actions; or a law commanding us to follow them: I Answer, as to the first, there needeth no particular demonstration of the morality of Apostolick actions: but this we can say for them, the nature and condition of the actions, and the Apostles doing of them, being considered; reason will not suffer us to question the morality of them. I mean it is certain that they are the will of Christ: for we must think that in matters not light and occasional, but weighty and of great concernment whether they be well or ill done; and which were done on mature deliberation; as the administration of the affairs of Christ's house: in matters, I say, of this nature, we are to think that the Apostles did that which was best and most approved of God; they being infallibly guided by his spirit. Now that, which was best to them, must certainly be best to us also, we managing the same affairs; except some diversity of our case from theirs can be shewn: wherefore we are obliged to think that the parity of Ministers in ruling the Church, is Christ's will, and so a moral duty; (not a thing indifferent) seeing it was so in the Apostolick Churches; as, I suppose, is proved by the maintainers of that way: and there is no reason why it should be otherwise with us than with them. For the second, we have also a law for following Apostolical example (as we have for following Christ's example; which, our Author saith, maketh it our duty) viz. 1 Cor. 4. 16. Wherefore I beseech you be ye followers of me. 1 Cor. 11. 1. Be ye followers of me, even as I am of Christ. And lest any think that this command of imitation is only in reference to duties otherways known to be such, as faith, love, &c. it is evident that this last place relateth to Church administrations; for he prefixeth this exhortation to the doctrine of decency and purity in their worship. Beside, that the exhortation being general, can suffer no exception, but where imitation would not have the same morality in us, that giving example had in them, viz. where the case is different. Other Scriptures to the same purpose are Phil. 3. 17. Heb. 6. 12. and this is commended (which clearly supposeth a command) 1 Thes. 1. 6. and 2. 14. 2 Thes. 3. 9. Ja. 5. 10. Wherefore, if we can shew Apostolical practice for our way of Church-Government (as I know we can) it is incumbent on our adversaries to shew a reason why they did such things, which doth not agree to our case; or else to submit to that way, as that which is Christ's law. For the other grounds of divine right, that he examineth, we insist not on them, as not being necessary to the defence of that truth which we maintain. Wherefore I wave what might be said against what he there disputeth.