Answer to Stillingfleets Irenicum, Chapter
PART II. CAP. 1, 2.
§. 1. IN his second part we have also some concessions to be taken notice of, as cap. 2. p. 154. that there must be a Form of Government, as necessary, not by Nature only, but by a Divine Law. This we receive as truth, and do thus improve it ad hominem: The Author cannot shew us any express Law in Scripture, commanding that there be a Form of Government in the Church; Neither can any Scripture ground of this truth be brought, but what is drawn from Apostolick practice; they had a Form of Government, ergo, so must we; seeing it is as needful to us as it was to them. Now if this be so, why doth the Author dispute so much against our reasoning from Apostolick practice (where the case is alike) for this particular Form of Government, as being established by Divine Law? If their practice be a sufficient evidence of a Divine Law (beside the Law of Nature) for this, that there be a Form: why is it not as significant of a Divine Law for this, that this is the Form; where the case of them and us is alike.
§. 2. We receive also as a concession, p. 157. that there is a Divine Warrant for a National Church; and for a National Form of Church-Government. Also, cap. 2. he concedeth that the Government of the Church ought to be administred by Officers of Divine Appointment, is of Divine Right. Where, in one word, he destroyeth (unawares) all that he saith for maintaining the lawfulness of Episcopal Government; for he doth not deny that Bishops as ruling over Presbyters, and having more power than their Brethren, are of Humane Constitution; and so they cannot be Officers of Divine appointment: If so, then by this Concession the Church ought not to be ruled by them; and so Episcopal Government is unlawful. I know not, if he did foresee this Argument taken out of himself: But in explaining his Concession he would fain seem to say some other thing than he hath indeed said: For he saith, that he here taketh the Church for the Members of the Church: So that his meaning is, there must be a standing perpetual Ministry: And this he proveth largely. This doth no ways explain what he hath said: For it is one thing that it be Divine Appointment that there are Officers; and another thing that these Officers be such as God hath appointed. Jeroboam when he made Priests of the lowest of the People, kept Divine Institution so far, that he made Priests; and did make that work common to all: And yet his Priests were not Officers of Divine Appointment: So neither is the Church ruled by Officers of Divine Appointment, though there be Officers who rule, which is Divine Appointment; except these Officers be such as God hath Instituted, and not such as men have devised. And besides this, the Law of Nature dictateth that there should be Rulers in the Church, distinct from the Ruled, as he had formerly observed: Wherefore he must here either trifle, or say some more, viz. that the Lord must appoint these sorts of Officers that should govern his Church: for the Author is here speaking of what is of Divine positive Right; having formerly shewed what is of Divine Natural Right.
§. 3. In the third Chap. we have the Question stated; in speaking of the Church as comprehending many particular Congregations, (and so excluding the Independent way from this Competition) he compareth these two forms of Government, viz. 1. The particular Officers of several Churches, acting in equality of power, called a Colledge of Presbyters. 2. A superiour order above the Ministry, having the Power of Jurisdiction and Ordination belonging to it. Now the Question is not whether of these cometh nearest to the primitive pattern: But whether either of them be setled by Divine Right; so as that the Church is bound to obseeve it. He holds the Negative: We the affirmative: and we say, that the former of these two is Juris Divini.
§. 4. For proving his opinion, he undertaketh to enervate all the Pleas which are made for the Divine Right of either of these: Five he proposeth, viz. 1. A former Law standing in force under the Gospel. 2. Some plain institution of a new Law under the Gospel. 3. The obligatory Nature of Apostolical practice. 4. The general sence of the primitive Church. 5. The Judgement of the chief Divines and Churches since the Reformation. Of these he discourseth severally: And we shall give our sence of them as in following him we come at them. But first I must here note a few things. 1. It is an injurious way of stateing the Question about this Divine Right, to exclude any who put in for it, from the liberty of Competition: Now he knoweth that others besides these plead a Divine Right of their way; as Erastians will have the keys given by Christ to the Magistrate: Independents, to the Community, or at least the Officers of a particular Church (Popery is not excluded, seeing it standeth on the same bottom with Episcopacy) though I think the Resolution of the question about Divine Right, might have laid both these aside; yet I think the stating of it might have taken them in; and they might have a fair hearing; lest some by seeing Presbytery and Episcopacy laid aside as of no Divine stamp, might be tempted to take of either of the other two for Christs Government, rather than leave the matter wholly at an uncertainty, and the will of men. But I observe that though the one of these he doth altogether slight; yet the other he doth not pass, out of any misregard to it; for he laboureth to take all power by Christ's gift, out of the hands of Presbyters and Bishops, that the Magistrate might have it, in solidum.
§. 5. 2. I observe, for further clearing the state of the Question, that all other parts of these two forms of Government, are confessed to be juris divini, vel naturalis, vel positivi, (as from his concessions have been manifest, and will yet more appear) only the matter of Parity or Superiority of Ministers is in question: and it being so, I propose this to be considered: that Parity be of Divine Right, it is sufficient, 1. That Christ hath given power to all Ministers to rule the Church. 2. That he hath not given a greater share of it to some than to others. 3. That it is his will that as he hath distributed this power equally, so that no man make it unequal; seeing that cannot be but by taking from the rest what Christ hath given them, and giving to one what he hath not given him. If these three be granted, Parity of Power is Christs Will, and so of Divine Right. Now our Author agreeth to the first two as Truth: For the first he asserteth in terminis; the second he cannot deny, while he asserteth Superiority not to be juris divini; the question then is only about the third, viz. When Christ hath given equal power to his Ministers, whether men may make it unequal, by subjecting one of them to another; abridging the power of one, and inlarging the power of another: Or which is all one; whether it be in the power of men, when Christ hath made but one Officer: to set up another of their own devising, who shall have a power that Christ never gave to any Officer in his Church? I am sure, we have this clear advantage; that Presbyters acting in Parity, do keep themselves within the bounds of Christs Institution; and can shew his warrant for so doing; whereas setting up a Bishop over them is without that line, and can be warranted by no divine Institution. Let it then be considered whether of these is the safest way for us to take.
§. 6. 3. I take notice that the Pleas that he ennumerateth for a particular form of Government, are not all which may be alledged; there may be many significations of the will of God in Scripture, that are neither set down in the plain terms of a Law, nor expressed by Apostolical practice. We draw good consequences from Promises, Reproofs, &c. which may shew us what is our duty. 4. Let it be minded that it is not needful for asserting of Divine Right, that we prove it from all these Topicks: one demonstration that it is the will of God that such a thing be, is sufficient. 5. The question being stated as before, the probation will be incumbent upon him, who asserteth that it is lawful for men to make them unequal in power, whom Christ hath made Pairs: we assert that the power of Ministers that is of Divine Right, is equal; which the Author doth not deny: he asserteth further, that men may restrain this Power in some, and enlarge it in others; for this he must shew warrant; for affirmant, incumbit probatio: we deny it; and here we might rest, till it can be shewed that Christ hath given such power to men, to cut and carve on his Institutions. The Divine Right of Parity is built on the want of Divine Right of Imparity. Notwithstanding we hope, (ex abundanti) to make other Pleas for it stand good, which he laboureth to make void.
§. 7. The first plea from a standing law in the Jewish Church we do not insist on, knowing that in matters of Institution, the Old Testament is no pattern for the New. Neither are we obliged to insist on this Plea, as he alledgeth, because some of ours do some times make use of their Example, as in proving a subordination of Courts: For 1. It is not instituted, but of the law of Nature; supposing once the unity of more Congregations: now what is taught by Nature may well be confirmed to us by the Law of God to the Jews; though we be not bound by that law, where there is not that reason. Again, Jewish example should have weight with us, where their case is not peculiar; seeing their practice came from an Infinitely wise Lawgiver: but this holdeth not in imparity, or subordination of Officers: It is known that the High Priest was Typical: that the Priesthood was annexed to one Tribe, for a peculiar Reason: these things do not concern us.