Answer to Stillingfleets Irenicum, Chapter 4

Answer to Stillingfleets Irenicum · Chapter 4

p. 42CHAP. IV.

HE cometh to the second Plea for a particular form of Government, viz. Christs instituting it by a new Law, where he alledgeth, that it is more hotly pleaded by many, that Christ must do it, than that he hath done it. This is a mis-representation, to say no worse. If it be not proved by the Assertors of Presbyterial Government that Christ hath instituted that form of Government, let their cause fall to the ground. We are ready to acknowledge that it were rashness, and a limiting of the Holy One, to say that he must institute a particular form: if we were not otherwise satisfied that he hath done it. But being convinced of that; we may be very much confirmed in our Opinion, by the consideration of these arguments, that hold forth, how fit, and how sutable to the wisdom of God, and the Administration of Christs Gospel Kingdom it is, that he should take this course; and not leave the affairs of his House to mans will, or p. 43lust rather. This is not prescribing to him; but a declaring of the fitness of what he hath done. Moreover, we do not, neither ever did we argue barely from the necessity of a particular form to be instituted by Christ, considering the thing it self only: but from some Scripture ground holding forth the necessity of it. Now if the Lord in the contrivance of the Gospel hath made it necessary to his design that there be a form of his appointment, and hath signified this to us by his word: it is no rashness to assert the necessity of it; even though we could not (through our darkness) certainly determine what is that form, in all the particulars of it. But I come to examine what he hath said against the Reasons that our Authors do bring for the fitness of a particular form of Christs instituting.

§. 2. The first of them is taken from comparing Christ the Lawgiver under the New Testament, with Moses under the Old Testament; and it is thus instituted, Heb. 3. 2, 5, 6. That as Moses was faithful in that House, as a Servant; much more was Christ as a Son; if then Moses was so faithful as to declare the Will of God concerning the Government of the Church, and that particularly what Form should be used, we must not think that Christ hath left this undone. To this he answereth, 1. Faithfulness is the discharge of a Trust: So that the faithfulness of Christ and Moses lyeth in doing the Work that the Lord laid on them: and this was to be Mediators, the one Typical the other True. Moses had the Pattern shewed him in the Mount, and therefore faithfulness required that he should settle that Form, and no other: But it cannot be made appear that Christ hath any Command from his Father of setling one Form of Government. So he, p. 176. To which I reply, 1. Our Argument may be so laid, as this Answer doth not at all touch it, thus; It is the Will of God (and so entrusted to the care of Christ) that there should be a Government in the Church; as is confessed by our Author: This Government must be managed, hic & nunc, in some particular Form, as sense and reason p. 44teacheth: Now that Christ might be faithful as Moses was in the discharge of this Trust, it was needful that he should set down a particular Form to be used by all; or appoint some who should determine what the particular Form should be. But according to this mans opinion, he hath done neither of these: Not the first, for that he pleadeth against: Nor the second, for our Author can shew us no Scripture where it is intrusted to any: And if we should require a plain and direct Law for this, in express and formal terms, as he doth of us in the like case; he would find it a hard task: Besides, if we consult Scripture, there is far more to be said for the power of the Church, than for the power of the Magistrate in such a determination: And reason also may, at least, set them in equal competition, if not cast the Scales in the favour of the Church, it being a matter purely Ecclesiastical, that is contended about; and yet this man giveth the deciding power in this to the Magistrate. It is strange if the Government of the Church under the Old Testament be so plain, and that under the New be left at such uncertainty.

§. 3. 2. That Moses and Christ are compared as Mediators, I do not deny: but this maketh nothing for, but against 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 spoken of) is chiefly meant of outward Administrations, of Teaching and Ruling: For the inward Administrations of satisfaction for sin, and communicating the Spirit to Believers, are not applicable to Moses: Now the setling the Government of the Church cannot but be a part of this Mediatory work, it being of so much and so near concernment to the spiritual good of believers: Wherefore Christ and Moses are here compared in their faithfulness, in setling of Church-Government as well as in other things. This is clearly confirm'd out of the 5th v. of that chap. where it is said, that Moses was faithful in all his house: Then the Law of Comparison p. 45saith that Christ is also there said to be faithful in all his House, i. e. 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 Christ and Moses are here compared in their faithfulness, in this Administration. 3. His Answer doth not well hang together, when first 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 subjoyneth, that Moses his faithfulness lay in keeping close to the pattern shewed him: Whereas Christ had no such command laid on him, nor pattern shewed him. If the faithfulness of Moses did ly in keeping Gods command, about Church-Government; how is he only spoken of as a Typical Mediator? and how is Christ's faithfulness compared with this faithfulness of Moses, seeing he received no such command?

§. 4. 'Tis false, that Christ received no Command about the Government of the Church: for the Scripture is clear that he is made head of the Church; hath the Government laid on his shoulders; hath received all power in Heaven and in Earth, &c. If he be by his Office King of the Church, sure it is his Office and Trust to settle the Government of his Church. This reply he maketh to himself, and answereth to it (p. 177.) in two or three things: First, he granteth that Christ is King of his Church, and doth govern it outwardly by his Laws, and inwardly by his Spirit; but we must not therefore say that one Form of Government is necessary, whether it be contained in his Laws, or dictated by his Spirit or not. To this I reply, 1. Neither do we make any such Inference: If we prove not one Form to be contained in his Laws, we shall pass from this Argument. That which we say is, that because he is King, and a faithful King, as Moses was, who setled a Form of Government, therefore a Form is contained in his Laws: Not that it is necessary whether it be contained in his Laws or not. 2. If p. 46Christ 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 Christs Institution? For the Church is governed by a particular Form, not by a general notion of a Government (for universale non existit nisi in suis singularibus) if then the particular form be of mans appointing, the Church is not outwardly governed by Christs Laws, but by mens; for men make the Laws, or Rule of its Government. If a King should send a Deputy to Govern a Nation, and give him leave to choose what Form of Government he would, either by himself, or by a Council where he should have but equal power with the rest: it could not be said in proper speech, 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 Government. Yea, suppose the King should make some Laws about it, as that nothing should be acted contrary to his Will, or Interest, that there should be Government, and not Anarchy, that there should be Rulers, and Ruled, &c. Yet the Nation may rather be said to be Governed by the Laws of him who determineth the particular Form: seeing the Government doth essentially consist in the management of a particular Form, and not in some general directions. This is easily applicable to our case: for our Author will have Christ to give some General directious about Church-Government; and men to determine and contrive the Form: Now let any judge then, whether the Church in that case be Governed by the Laws of Christ, or the Laws of men? Wherefore I conclude that this Answer destroys it self, while it denyeth a particular Form instituted by Christ, and yet will have the Church outwardly governed by his Laws. 2. He saith, the main original of mistakes here, is the confounding of the external and internal government of the Church of Christ: and thence, whensoever men read of Christs power, authority and government, they fancy it refers p. 47to the outward government of the Church of God, which is intended of this internal Mediatory power over the hearts and consciences of men. Reply. We are willing to distinguish these; and I believe he cannot shew any of ours who do confound them: yea, we will go further in distinguishing the outward and inward Government of the Church than he doth: and I may retort this charge on himself, hoping to make it appear that he confoundeth these two, and that this is the ground of his mistakes. The Government of the Church is then two-fold: Inward, and Outward: both these may be distinguished according to divers objects of this Government: for Inward Government is either that which is exercised in the conscience; and so is invisible: or that which is exercised in the Church, or in matters that are properly spiritual and not civil; though they be visible to men, and so outward in respect of the conscience. So outward Government is either such in respect to the conscience, and it is that we have now described; or outward in respect to the Church, viz. That that which is exercised in matters relating to the Church, and yet are not properly Spiritual but Civil, and concern the Church, not as it is a Church but as it is a Society. Or we may distinguish thus, the Government of the Church is either invisible, viz. in the conscience; or visible; and this is either in things that are Ecclesiastical, and so it is inward in respect to the Church: or in things that are Civil, and so it is outward. The first of these is immediately exercised by Christ; the second mediately, and that by the Guides of the Church, as his Deputies; the third by the Magistrate as a servant of Christ in his Kingdom that he hath over all the World. I hope now the outward and inward Government of the Church of Christ is sufficiently distinguished, and not so confounded as to be the cause of mistakes about it. But now let us see whether he himself, who chargeth others with this confounding, be not guilty of it; and doth not here mistake the truth by confounding the Internal p. 48and the External Government of the Church. It is very evident that it is so: for, 1. He setteth down the bare terms of a distinction between internal and external Government; but doth not tell what he meaneth by either of them: Whether the distinction be to be applyed to the Conscience, and so be meant of invisible and visible Government: Or to the Church, and so be understood of Ecclesiastical and formal, or of Civil and Objective Government of the Church: We are to seek in this, for all his distinction. 2. He seemeth confusedly to refer to both these, as he here manageth the distinction; or at least, some things seem to draw the one way, and some the other: For when he denyeth Christs power and Authority, spoken of in the Scripture, to refer to the outward Government of the Church, this must be meant of that Government which is Civil, not of visible Ecclesiastical Government. I hope he will not deny that to be a part of Christs Authority. Again, where he granteth Christs internal mediatory power over the Conscience; this must be meant of his invisible Government; both because it is certain Christ hath such a Power, and our Author here denyeth all other power of Government to him: Also because no other power is internal over the Conscience but this. But what-ever be his meaning, this answer doth not take away the force of our argument, for if he deny the Scriptures, that speak of Christs power, Kingdom, and Authority, to be meant of Civil power, but to be meant of visible internal power in the Church; this is all we desire; for if Christ hath such a Kingdom; then the management of the visible Government of the Church is his trust; in which his faithfulness would make him settle a particular form as Moses did. Only I take notice how inconsistent this is with his Principles, seeing he denyeth any visible power in the Church (save that of Word and Sacraments, as it followeth immediately) and putteth all other power in the hand of the Magistrate, as do all the rest of the Erastians. If he deny the p. 49Scriptures, that speak of Christ's Authority and Kingdom, to be meant of Visible Ecclesiastical Government, and make them speak only of an invisible Government over the Conscience; which is exercised by his Word and spirit; in this first he is contrary to all men, for even Erastians themselves do grant that Christ hath such a Kingdom; but they would have it managed by the Magistrate; whom they make Christ's Vicegerent in his Mediatory Kingdom: and others do hold such a Kingdom of Christ, and that it is managed by the Officers of his Church. Secondly, he derogateth from the Kingdom of Christ, denying that which is a considerable part of the exercise of his Kingly Office: What? is Christ a King, not only of Angels, but of Men, united in a visible Society, the Church; and yet hath no visible Government exercised in his name among them? this is a ridiculous inconsistency. Thirdly, he is contrary to many Scriptures which speak of Christs Kingdom and Authority; and must be understood of a visible Authority exercised in a visible Government; such as Eph. 4. 10, 11. Setting up of Pastors there mentioned is a visible act: and it is made an act of his Authority, 1 Cor. 11. 3. Christ's Headship is mentioned with a reference to the ordering the visible decency of his Worship. Also, Psal. 2. 8. Psal. 22. 27. Psal. 110. 3. Col. 1. 13. and many other places; which it is strange daring to restrict to the invisible exercise of Christs Authority in the soul. Fourthly, this is contrary to all these Scriptures which speak of the several outward acts of the exercise of Christs Government; as gathering a people to him, Isa. 55. 4, 5. Acts 15. 14, 15, 16, 17. giving them laws, Isa. 33. 2. Mat. 28. 20. Mat. 5. 17, 19. Verses, &c. setting up Officers, Eph. 4. 10. 11. giving them power of Discipline, Mat. 16. 19. Mat. 18. 17, 18. John 20. 23. Fifthly, it is contrary to himself; for Preaching and Administring Sacraments are visible acts: if then Christ as King hath invested p. 50his Servants with this power (which he confesseth p. 177. where also he confesseth that he Governeth the Church outwardly by his Laws) he must have a visible Government as he is King of his Church. That which he addeth, viz. that this is made known to us in the word, but not the other; viz. that he hath appointed a particular Form: this I say, 1. Beggeth the Question. 2. Destroyeth his Answer, wherein he denyeth Christ's visible Government; for this is a part of it, which he granteth.

§. 5. Another Answer he frameth to our Argument from Christ and Moses, p. 177. That if the comparison of Christ and Moses infer an equal exactness of disposing every thing in the Church; then we must be bound to all circumstances as the Jews were: but there is this difference between the Old and New Testament; that there all ceremonies and circumstances were exactly prescribed; here there are only general rules for circumstantial things; there, the very pins of the Tabernacle were commanded; here it is not so, but a liberty is left for times, place, persons, &c. Reply, 1. We do not plead for an equal exactness in determining all things: We know the Old and New Testament state of the Church requireth a diversity here: but we plead for the equal faithfulness of Christ with Moses; now Christ was intrusted with setting up a Government in the Church as well as Moses; whence it followeth that he behoved to enjoyn the particular Form of it as Moses did: seeing 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 exposed to the will of man, who may and readily will erre. 2. The difference that he maketh between the Law and the Gospel is most false, viz. That there all circumstances of worship were determined, here not so: yea, it is with more truth observed by some that more circumstances of worship, were left to the prudence p. 51of men under the Law, then now under the Gospel: For every one of their actions imposed; as sacrifices, washings, &c. had of necessity abundance of circumstances attending them; as when, how, with what Instruments, &c. Wherefore the more ordinances there were, the more circumstances undetermined. There is indeed this difference; that God under the Law did by his command place Religion in many natural circumstances of worship; as in the day of Circumcision, of killing the Passover, &c. and so set them above the degree of meer circumstances, which he hath not done under the Gospel: but it doth not follow that all things, even of greatest moment to Church-Order, and the worship of God are now left free, because we have not so many Ceremonies as the Jews had; for those circumstances, which are of Civil and common concernment to Religion, and other actions, be left to prudence, and matters relating to the Government of the Church, which are of that nature, be also left free: yet we must not for that, think that the Government it self, as managed, even the substance of it (which must lie in a particular Form, seeing a general notion of Government is not practicable) is left to the will of men. I hope our Author will not say that the Form of Government is a circumstance, neither ought he to say that it is a thing of common concernment to the Church and other Societies: The Church is a Society singular, and of another Nature than others, Cant. 6. 9. She is but one, the only one of her Mother, therefore her Government must be sutable; wherefore it ought not to be put in, in the same case with the Natural circumstances that accompany all our actions; which here the Author most unwisely doth.

§. 6. For a third answer he bringeth reasons why all punctillio's (as he is pleased to speak) should not be now determined as they were under the Law. In this we do not p. 52contradict him, as appeareth from what is now said: Quere non respondes ad rem? Neither is it savoury to account the form of Government, by which the visible being of the Church doth stand, a punctillio: Such a diminutive expression is not without contempt. But let us hear his Reasons: The first, p. 179. is taken from the perfection of the Gospel-state above the Jewish: That Church needed the fescues of Ceremonies to direct her, and must have every part of her Lesson set her: This must not be still sub ferula, and not dare to vary in any Circumstance which doth not concern the thing it self. As boy a at School hath his Lesson and the manner of learning it prescribed: At the Vniversity, more general directions do serve. In that Church every circumstance was determined; in this things moral remain in force, but circumstantials are left more at liberty.

Ans. 1. The point in question is not here touched: 'Tis not questioned whether the Gospel-Church should be loaded with Ceremonies as was the Jewish; nor whether in every Circumstance she be bound by a Law (though he doth falsly suppose that the Jewish Church was bound in every Circumstance, as I have already shewed) but rather whether she be bound in any thing besides the moral Law: And particularly whether she be bound to a form of Church Government. Such loose declamations as this, aggravating some absurdities impertinent to the thing in hand, are no solid refutations. I hope the Church may be bound to a particular form of Government, viz. to parity of Ministers, and yet have liberty in abundance of circumstances. His example of a School-boy, and one at the Vniversity; of a Son when a Child, and when at Age, makes nothing against us: For in both Cases they are in subjection to some positive commands of the Master or Father: So is the Gospel-Church under some such Commands, though not so many as the Jews were. 2. Is it contrary to Gospel-perfection to be under the Commands of Christ as to a Form of Church Goment, p. 53and to be ruled by a way of his contriving? This must be a strange kind of perfection that he dreameth of. We believe that the Church is yet so imperfect, and will be while on Earth, that she hath need to be Governed by Christs Laws; and is far happier in that Case, then if she were left to chuse her own way in matters of so great Concernment as is the Form of Church Government. 3. Is it not as contrary, and far more, to the perfection of the Gospel-Church to be under a form of Government, imposed by the Magistrate (as this man would have us) then if it be imposed by Christ? Sure Christs Yoke is easier then mens; and his device must 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 Universal Law binding all: But in things that are equally good to all; it is better to be under Christs General, then mans particular Law. Now the thing in debate, Parity or Imparity among Ministers is attended with the same conveniences, or inconveniences, in all Countries and Conditions, and while men are prone to Tyranny on the one hand and to divisions on the other: Wherefore it is no ways unfit that Christ should here decide the matter by a general Law. 'Tis not like the Time or place of meeting, which must vary in divers places: Neither can he shew us any reason, why it should be one way in one Church, and another way in another, except mans pleasure, which is a bad Rule in the matters of Christ. 4. Whereas he saith that in the Gospel Church things moral remain in their force; but circumstantials are left at more liberty: I suppose he meaneth Natural morality, or things contained in the moral Law; and not things that have any morality, or goodness by any Law of God: for if he meant this latter, he doth but trifle; for his meaning must be, that things which are not determined by any command, and have neither good nor evil in p. 54them, are left at liberty; which who doth not know? Neither can he say that it was otherwise in the Jewish Church as this his assertion must imply, if that be his meaning. If he mean the former (as certainly he doth) then, 1. it is an ill division of things that belong to the Church, in Morals and Circumstantials: Be there not Christs positive institutions which belong to neither of these kind? The Lord's Supper is no moral thing in this sence; neither, I hope, is it a Circumstantial thing that is left at liberty. 2. If he call all things Circumstantial which are not thus moral; and assert them to be left at liberty; he doth at one blow cut of all the institutions of Christ, and will have the Gospel-Church so perfect as to be under no law of God, but the moral Law, and what Laws men please to add unto it. This I hope he will retract when he considereth what he hath here asserted: For I perceive, that even learned men can say sometimes they know not what.

§. 7. His second reason, p. 180. is this, The Form of government among the Jews in the Tribe of Levy was agreeable to the form of Government among the other Tribes; and their Ecclesiastical Government was one of their Judicial Laws: Wherefore, if in this we compare Christ with Moses we must hold it needful that he prescribe also a form of Civil Government.

Ans. 1. When we compare Christ with Moses, we have very good cause to make an exception where the Scripture hath evidently made it. We compare them then as two Mediators, entrusted with managing the affairs which concern mens Eternal Salvation; among which are Church Administrations: Hence there is Warrant for stretching that comparison made of them in Scripture to their faithfulness in appointing Church Government; but as to Civil Government the Scripture maketh a plain exception, when it evidently holdeth forth p. 55Moses a State Law-giver as, well as a Church Law-giver; and it doth as evidently testifie that Christ was not such; when he denieth his Kingdom to be of this World, Joh. 18. 36. And that he is a Judge and divider of inheritance among men, Luk. 12. 14. and his mean condition in the World (unlike to Moses) maketh this farther appear.

Wherefore there is no necessity of comparing them in Civil, though we compare them in Church-Administrations. The Lord was pleased to make the Government of Israel, in respect of Church and State both, to be Theocratia; to give them both kinds of Laws immediately from himself: That seeing he hath under the Gospel done otherwise, as to State-Government, he hath also done otherwise as to Church-Government; what a mad kind of consequence is this? And there is evident reason of this differing Dispensation under the Law, and under the Gospel. I suppose if the difference of cases that arise from variety of Circumstances did permit; it were the happiest case for God's People to have all their actions and concernments particularly determined by the Lord, who is wiser then men: now the Lord doth thus with them, so far as it hinders not their happiness, by a load of multiplicity of Laws: Wherefore, seeing the Church and State of the Jews were commensurable, being in one Nation, it was as easie for them to have their State-Laws determined by the Lord as their Church-Laws: But it is far otherwise under the Gospel, where the Church is spread over so many different Nations, of divers dispositions and manners; to have determined all things for the Civil Good of all these Nations, which must be superadded. To the Determinations of Natures Law, would have made the Bible a burthen to men.

p. 56But it is not so in Ecclesiastical matters, there is nothing peculiar to the Church as a Church, or Religious Society, but (supposing what Nature Dictates) may without burthening People with many Laws, be determined and imposed upon all.

Hence is it that the Lord saw it for the good of the Jewish Church, to give them both Civil and Church-Laws, and for the good of the Gospel 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 seemeth sometime to think) that it was any part of legal bondage to have Laws from God, even in the least matters: and that which is Christian liberty to be free from Gods Laws in these things, when we are bound to the same by the Laws of men: I should rather prefer their state to ours, thus far: but their bondage was, to have many things determined and imposed upon them which were naturally indifferent, and so free: which the Lord hath now left free under the Gospel.

Answ. 2. It is not to the purpose to tell us, that the Government of the Tribe of Levy was like that of the other Tribes: For Church-Government was very different from Civil Government for all that, viz. in this, that it was in the hand of the Tribe of Levy, and no other Tribe, which was a positive Institution of God: that it did cognosce of other matters than Civil Government did: that it did inflict other censures. But let it be never so co-incident with Civil Government, yet it was of p. 57Gods Institution, which is all that is needful to our purpose. That the Form of Ecclesiastical Government took place among them, as one of their Judicial Laws, is a groundless Assertion: Yea, it is a begging of the Question, and also taking away the Distinction of Church and State among the Jews, which is not needful here to be insisted upon, till some man Answer what Mr. Gillespie in his Aarons-rod hath written to this purpose.

§. 8. His third Reason, ib. is, the People of the Jews were an entire People when their Church-Government was setled: the Gospel Church was but in Forming in Christs and the Apostles times: they settled what was for the present need of the Church in her first Constitution, as in appointing Officers; this will not serve when the Church is grown, and spread: her coat cut out for her Infancy must not be urg'd on her when grown.

Answ. 1. This doth no way satisfie the comparing of Christ's faithfulness with Moses; for Moses gave Laws in the Wilderness, not only for that wandring condition, but for their setled state in the Land of Canaan. Must we then think that Christ took care that the Church in Infancy should have his Laws to be guided by, but afterward to be left to the Dictates of men? Sure our Lord was as careful to foresee future needs of his People, as to provide for present wants.

2. The Church in the Apostles days, though not so far spread as now, yet was so multiplyed and setled, as p. 58that she was capable to be ruled by Parity or Primacy: Might there not be a Bishop in Ephesus, Corinth, &c. and especially in Galatia, a National Church? Might there not be a College of Presbyters then as well as now? Wherefore, if the Apostles provided for present need, they behoved either to determine either of these two, ex ore tuo.

3. What is there in our case that maketh another kind of Government needful, then what was needful in the Apostles times? We have many Congregations which all need their several Officers, and must be ruled in common; either by all these Officers, or by some set above the rest: was not this their case 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, seeing the powers of the world profess Christ. It is true, there was a time when Government could not be setled, viz. When first a Church was planted, and Believers very few: But I am sure it was otherwise in many places before the Apostles departed this life.

4. Must we say then that the Directions in the Epistles to Tim. and Pet. and elsewhere, concerning Church-Administration, do not concern us; but their force expired with that time? I must see stronger Arguments than any that this Author hath brought, ere I be perswaded of this: and yet it doth clearly follow, out of what he he saith. Yea, we must say that these Scriptures which tell us what Officers should be in the Church, as, Eph. 4. 12. 1 Cor. 12. 28. Rom. 12. 6, 7, 8. do not reach us: but it is lawful for the Magistrate (in this mans opinion) to appoint what Church-Officers he p. 59thinketh fit for this time, as the Apostles did for their time. For he saith, p. 181. the Apostles looked at the present state of the Church, in appointing Officers. This I hope sober men will not readily yield to: Yea, he is against himself, as we have seen before, and may have occasion further to shew afterward.

§. 9. His fourth and last Reason is, p. 181. the Jews lived under one civil Government, according to which the Church Government was framed and contempered: but Christians live under different civil Governments; therefore if we compare Christ with Moses in this, we must say that Christ did frame the Church Government according to the Civil; and so it must not be one but divers.

Ans. It is here boldly supposed, but not proved that the form of the Jewish Church Government, was framed according to the Civil, which we deny, and so raze the foundation of this Reason. And whereas his assertion wants proof; our denial shall stand on surer 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. Wherefore neither must Christian Church-Government be formed by the Civil, but by Christs Institution.

§. 10. To these answers to our Argument, he addeth, ex abundanti, as he speaketh, some Arguments to prove the Antithesis, viz. that Christ did never intend to institute any one Form of Government. He might p. 60have spared this his supererrogation, except he had had more to say for taking off the strength of our Argument then we have met with. But to his Arguments, the first p. 181 and 182. he frameth thus; what binds the Church as an Institution of Christ, must bind as an Universal standing Law: one Form of Government cannot so bind, ergo, prob. min. what binds as a Law must either be expressed as a Law in direct terms; or deduced by necessary consequence, as of an universal binding nature: The first cannot be produced; The second is not sufficient; except the consequence be necessary, and also the obligation of what is drawn by consequence be expresly set down in Scripture; for consequences cannot make Institution, but apply it to particular cases: because positives being indifferent, Divine Institution must be directly brought for their binding; so that no consequence can bind us to them, without express declaration that it shall so bind. This is no new Argument, it is proposed by him p. 12. and answered by us p.—to what is said there, I shall add a little applyed to his Argument, as here framed, his major is not so evident but that it needeth a distinction to clear it. What bindeth as Christs Institution must bind as an universal Law, i. e. in all times and places, negatur, for there are cases in which the Lord will admit, and necessity will impose a dispensation with some of God's Institutions, as I exemplified before in the case of Hezekiah keeping the Passeover; i. e. in all times where God or Nature doth not make a clear exception; or where the present case doth not exempt it self from the intent of that, as being given in a far different condition, conceditur. Hence there were some of Christs Laws for the Church, temporal; some peculiar to some cases: these do not bind us, all the rest do, where they are possibly practicable. That the Laws for parity of Offices in the Church are of the latter sort, we maintain. p. 61For his Miner, we deny it, and for the disjunctive proof of it we are ready to maintain both the parts which he impugneth. And, First, That there is express Law of Christ for parity: which I wonder he should so barely deny that it can be produced; when he knoweth or might know that it is brought by our Writers out of Mat. 20. 25, 26. Lu. 22. 25, 26. But what he hath to say against the evidence brought from these and other places, we shall examine; when we come at them. 2. Though there were no express Law for it, we maintain that there is abundant evidence drawn by consequence from Scripture to shew that this is the Will and Law of Christ: as for these two conditions that he requireth in such a consequence; the first we own and maintain, that it is inferred by clear consequence from Scripture that there ought to be a parity among Ministers, thus; what was the practice of the Apostles in framing Church Government, should be ours also, except the case be different; but the Apostles did settle the Ministers in equal power, without a Bishop over them: neither is there any difference in our case that should cause us to do otherwise; ergo, we ought so to practice. It is not needful to insist here on the confirmation of this Argument, seeing we are here only asserting that this conclusion may be proved; not undertaking the proof of it: which is fully done by Presbyterian Writers, and which we are ready to defend against what this Author will object. For the second condition, viz. that what is drawn by consequence be expresly set down in Scripture as binding: this is unlike Mr. Stillingfleet's ability to require such a ridiculous condition; for if it be expresly set down in Scripture as binding, then it is not a consequence but an express Law; and so belongs to the former part of his disjunction. And besides, it is a hard task to put any one upon, to find out a consequence so deduced in Scripture: p. 60What if Anabaptists, who deny consequences from Scripture in the point of Institution, should put Mr. Stillingfleet to prove Infant Baptism by such a consequence as this: where something is said in Scripture, from which the duty of Baptizing Infants doth clearly follow; and where it is expresly said in Scripture, that it doth follow from this, that Infants must be baptized; he would find this an hard task, and yet he requireth the same of us. What he saith for the warranting of this strange Doctrine, wanteth force. It is true Consequences cannot make an Institution, yet they may declare an Institution: we may gather the Will of Christ in matters of Institutions by Scripture consequences as well as in points of Truth. And though Positives be indifferent, it is not needful that Divine Institution be directly declared; for their binding; seeing it is the Will of God revealed that bindeth us, not his Will revealed in such or such terms. He were a bad Servant that would do nothing of his Masters Will, but what he declareth to him directly, and in the Imparative Mood: such Servants to God this Author would have us, that so we may have the greater latitude to be the Servants of Men; taking their Will instead of Divine Institution.

§. 11. His second Argument, p. 182. is this; All the standing Laws for Church Government in Scripture may be applyed to several forms, ergo, there is no one Form prescribed. For proof of this, he reduceth all the Laws about Church Government to these three heads. 1. Such as set 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 these he insisteth distinctly. Before I come to what p. 61he saith on these three Heads; let me answer generally to the Argument. And first by standing Laws, I suppose he meaneth such as are expresly set down in the form of Laws: and then we deny his consequence, for though these do only respect Government, in its more general consideration, yet that doth not hinder but the species of it may be determined another way, viz. by Apostolick practices, or consequences drawn from Scripture. 2. Though we should grant that all the Laws set down in Scripture are equally applicable to either form, yet the one Form, viz. Parity may be determined in Scripture thus. Parity and Episcopacy do agree in many things; suppose then they agree in all that is commanded in Scripture; and that Episcopacy be so far warrantable: no wonder that they be not discriminated by these Laws; but then here comes the differences; Parity requireth no more for its establishment, but these Scripture Laws: and so it holdeth it self within the bounds of Divine Institution; but Episcopacy goeth beyond this boundary, by setting up a new Officer in the Church which the Scripture knoweth not; and so one Form is determined, though not by any Law condemning the other expresly; 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 reducible to these three Heads, do relate to either Form, in that wherein they differ. But let us hear his proofs. He beginneth with the first Head, p. 183. where, I confess, that all the qualifications of Persons which he mentioneth may be applied to either Bishop or Presbyter. But then, 1. This is an Argument that Bishop and Presbyter are one, or rather that there is no such distinction by the Will of Christ; for sure there are distinct qualifications required, the one being to Rule, the other to Obey: wherefore if the Apostles had thought there p. 64might be both Bishops and Presbyters in the Church; surely he would have set down the qualities of a Bishop as he is distinguished from a Presbyter, as well as he setteth down the qualities of a Presbyter. Confirmatur, a man may be a well qualified Presbyter acting under a Bishop, and yet not qualified to be a Bishop: wherefore if the Apostle had thought it lawful to set the one over the other, his qualifications of Church Officers are very lame, seeing he doth not shew us who among the Presbyters is fittest to be made my Lord Bishop; as well as he sheweth who among the People are fit to be Presbyters. 2. The Laws concerning qualifications do require in all Presbyters an ability to rule the Church, and do suppose them to be rulers of the Church; as is clear, 1 Tim. 3. 4, 5. this is not applicable to Episcopacy, for in Episcopacy it is not needful that Presbyters be able to rule, seeing they have no exercise of that Faculty: as God createth nothing in vain, so he doth not require any qualifications of men in vain. Is it imaginable that if a man be well qualified to Preach, &c. and yet unfit to rule; that the Lord will have that man kept out of the Ministry for that want of a ruling ability, seeing he should have no use of that faculty if he had it? Ergo, these qualifications are not applicable to Episcopacy, where the Bishop alone ruleth. If it be said, that this maketh the sole Jurisdiction of Bishops unlawful, not their being Rulers together with the Presbyters; Ans. If Bishops be set over Presbyters, they must either be only Praesides, which is not contrary to Parity (for we speak of Parity or Imparity of Jurisdiction) or they must have Authority above and over their Brethren; and if so they may rule without their Brethren; seeing they may command them and make that power void which Christ hath given his Servants; and so the force of what I have said doth p. 65return. Again, if Presbyters under a Bishop have Ruling Power, either they may determine without, or against his consent, or not; if so, the Bishop is but a President; if not, the Presbyters are but Cyphers, seeing the Bishop may do in the Church what he pleaseth.

Sect. 12. He cometh p. 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 faithfulness is a commanded duty in what ever station God putteth a man: But our Author taketh occasion here to infer the indifferency of either form. 1. Because Paul did not determine in his Epistles to Tim. and Tit. (which chiefly concern Church-Government) whether any should succeed to Timothy and Tit. in Ephesus and Creet. Ans. It is a bad consequence, for the thing did determine it self, for they were Extraordinary Officers, immediately called by God, being Evangelists; therefore they were to have no Successors, unless the Lord did so call them. Further, they were not fixed in these places, but for a time: they did not live and die there; which shewed that there was no need of Successors to them in that Office. Again he argueth, that the Apostle did not determine how the Pastors of several Churches should order things of common concernment; which, considered with the former, would seem a strange omission, were either of these forms necessary. Ans. This is no strange omission, nor should it so be esteemed by this Author, who maketh all that is requisite for the right managing of affairs by the Pastors of several Churches, to be of the Law of Nature, viz. that they should meet, that one should moderate, that there should be Appeals, &c. as I observed out of him before. 2. We deny that it is omitted: yea, this Author in saying otherwise, contradicteth himself; for he will not deny, but there are directions in these Epistles for Church-Government; and he affirmeth, that they are applicable to either form, Ergo, to Pastors acting in Parity; neither was it needful that there p. 66should be directions to them, which are not applicable to Bishops governing, because the managing of the work is the same in both ways, except what Nature maketh necessary to a Society, or a single person governing, which also it doth teach. 3. The matter is determined even in these Epistles, viz. 1 Tim. 4. 14. where it is not obscurely held forth, that Tim. was ordained by a Presbytery; which inferreth, that Presbyters ought so to be ordained, and not by a Bishop alone. 4. Though the matter were not determined in these Epistles, it is no wonder, they being written to particular men, but it is determined in other Scriptures, viz. where Christ giveth the Keys, not to one, but to all the Apostles then, the only Church Officers; and where Paul committeth the care of the Church of Ephesus, not to one Bishop, but to the Elders in common, Act. 20. 28. Of this he saith, p. 184. it is equally a duty, whether we understand by Overseers some acting over others, or all joyning in equality. But by his leave, when the Apostle giveth this charge peremptorily to all the Elders of Ephesus (for to them he speaketh, not to these of other Churches of Asia, as he dreameth the Text may be understood, upon what ground I know not) there is no doubt left, whether he maketh it the duty of them all in common, or of some one set over the rest: And may we not think that this Command is a standing Rule, reaching even to us, as he himself saith, (p. 185.) of what is contained in the Epistles to Tim. and Tit.? and if so, then all Pastors are Bishops or Overseers, not one over the rest by Apostolick Authority. He argueth thus, p. 185. Tim. is charged to commit the things he had heard of Paul to faithful men, who might be able also to teach others, 2 Tim. 2. 2. Had it not been as requisite to have charged him to have committed his power of Government to them, &c.? Ans. 1. Yea, he doth here commit power of Preaching, and of governing, joyntly to Timothy, to be transferred by him to others; for of both these, I suppose, p. 67Tim. had heard from Paul: why then must we here understand the one, rather then the other? in that he mentioneth Teaching, not Ruling, it is because Teaching is the main business, and hath the other power necessarily joined with it, by divine Institution. 2. It is not always needful to mention Governing Power, where ever the power of a Minister is mentioned, and here, it cannot be deemed needful, because the Apostle had formerly instructed Tim. that he choose none to be Pastors, but they who are able to Rule too, whence it followeth, that when he biddeth him commit to them the Pastoral charge, he intendeth Ruling Power as a part of it; else to what purpose should he require ability to Rule in them? To the same purpose is what he saith of Tit. That he bid him ordain Elders, but told not what Power did belong to them; a Negative Argument from one place of Scripture, is in concludent, such as this is: From the Superiority of Tim. and Tit. (I pass his clearing of it, from being an Argument for Episcopacy) he inferreth two things, p. 186. 187. First that the Superiority of some Church Officers (he should have said Presbyters, for of Officers it is not Questioned on either hand) over others, is not contrary to the Rule of the Gospel. 2. That it is not repugnant to the Constitution of the Church in Apostolical times for men to have power over more then one particular Congregation. These saith he follow, though their Office be supposed extroardinary; and that they acted as Evangelists. Ans. It will follow indeed from these examples, that Superiority is not contrary to Nature, nor to the Nature of a Gospel Church: Also it will follow, that it is not contrary to Gospel Institution, that the Lord should immediately, when he seeth cause, appoint such Superiority; and what if we say it followeth, that it is not contrary to Gospel Institution, that in some extraordinary cases, that Superiority may be allowed for a time. But none of these are the thing in Question: p. 68for this doth not follow, that because the Lord did immediately call these men, and gave them Extroardinary Power over others; therefore he hath not instituted, that the ordinary way of Church Government shall be by Pastors acting in Purity, which is here disputed. His third head of Laws, formerly mentioned, he toucheth, p. 188. and bringeth instances of some General rules for Church Government, which I confess are not peculiar to one form: But this doth not hinder that there may be other Rules which are such; which himself instanceth; as, that complaints be made to the Church: it is an odd exposition to say, i. e. Tell the Bishop. The Church implieth clearly a Plurality. p. 187. had it been the will of Christ, saith he, that there should be no Superiority of Pastors, there would have been some express and direct prohibition of it. Ans. 1. Might not a prohibition by Consequence serve turn? This is very peremptorily spoken. 2. What needeth any prohibition, when Christ had instituted a way inconsistent with it; this was a prohibition of it: now this he did by giving Ruling power to all Presbyters, as hath been already shewed.

Sect. 13. He bringeth another Argument of his Opposites, p. 189. Viz. That it is of equal necessity, that Christ should Institute a certain Form, as that any other Legislator that moderates a Commonwealth should do. His first. Ans. To this is, that Christ hath instituted such an immutable Government in his Church as is sufcient for the succession and continuance of it; which is all that founders of Republicks looked after, viz. That there be such an order and distinction of Persons, and subordination, that a Society may be preserved among them. Till then it be proved that one form is necessary for the being of a Church, this Argument can prove nothing. Reply, it is false, that Legislators looked after no more but that, we find none of them, who setled not a particular Form: yea this p. 69was necessary; for these Generals could not be practised, but in some particular Form, this or that: and of these we find they choosed what they thought fittest: even so Christ not only appointed Generals, but knowing a particular Form is only practicable, he chose that which he thought fittest; mans choise in this is alterable, because other men may have as much wisdom and authority as they; Christs choise is not so, for the contrary reasons. His second Ans. p. 190. Is, what is not absolutely necessary to the being of a Church, is in Christs liberty, whether he will determine it or not: even as when I hear, that Lycurgus and others did form a Republick; I conclude there must be Government: But not that they Institute Monarchy, &c. this must be known by taking a view of their Laws. Reply, we acknowledge that Form of Government to be in Christs liberty whether he will determine it, or not; but we think it like, that he hath determined it: as for other reasons, so because even men have not appointed the Generals of Government, without a form in which they should subsist: much less would the wise God do so; if they being wiser then others, did think it fitter to choose the Form then to leave it at other mens will, much more would he. What he saith, of inferring, that they did appoint this or that Form, from their modelling a Common Wealth; is not to the purpose: for that they did appoint a Form we know by History; and, I suppose, that every one thinketh that they did wisely in so doing; and that their doing so was for the good of the Republick: hence we infer that it is like Christ did so, seeing he sought his peoples good more then they; and the Church is less able to choose for her self, then those Republicks were; seeing Church Matters are of spiritual concernment, and so 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 Christ hath instituted, but by looking into his Laws; p. 70yea, and but that way, we could not certainly know that he hath determined any one form; yet this doth not hinder, but such Arguments as this may have their own weight. The Testimony he bringeth out of Mr. Hooker, is answered from what hath been said, and I am to meet with it elsewhere: He mistaketh our intent in such Arguments, and falsly supposeth that the form we plead for is not found in the Bible.

Sect. 14. He bringeth another argument, p. 191. from the similitude of a Vine which must have its Dressers; and a House, and a City, which must have Government: it was very easie for him to answer the Argument thus propounded; I know not who ever did so manage it: But it might have been thus improved, a wise Master of a Vineyard will not let his servants do what they please, but will appoint them his work in his Vineyard; and a Master of a Family, or a King in a Country or City, will not let the Servants or Subjects chuse in what they shall be governed; Ergo, if the Church be a Vine, a House, a City, and Christ be the Head and Ruler of it, it is not like that he hath left the choise of the way of governing it to men, but hath appointed it himself: If he had thus propounded the Argument, it had not been so easily answered. The same way he useth the next Argument, p. 192. taken from the difference of Civil and Ecclesiastical Government; the one of which is called the Ordinance of man, and the other is Gods Ordinance; therefore though that be mutable, this is not. I chuse rather to frame the Argument otherwise, out of his own Concession he maketh difference between these two Governments, the one is for a Political, the other for a spiritual end; the one for a temporal, the other for an eternal end; the one given to men as men, the other to men as Christians; the one to preserve Civil Right, the other to preserve an Eternal Interest, &c. Then, however the Lord let men chuse the way of attaining p. 71political and temporal ends, and provide for their own standing as men, and preserve their Civil Rights; yet it is strange to think, that he hath left it to mens choise to take this or that way for attaining their spiritual and eternal end, for procuring their standing as Christians, for preserving their spiritual rights: though the one be the Ordinance of man, sure the other must be the Ordinance of God: But the form of Church-Government is the way to attain these, because Church-Government is the mean, as is confessed, and it cannot be acted but in a particular form, and the form is the way of managing that mean, and so attaining the end; yea, it is such a way as hath exceeding influence upon attaining these ends, seeing a wrong form may more hinder than promote them; man, I suppose, may chuse a way that may do more hurt than good; it is strange then if Christ hath left this which is of such high concernment, to such high ends, to the will of corrupt men: and this Argument may have the more weight ad hominem, because this Author is often endeavouring to shape Church-Government according to the Civil, which is very unsuitable to what he asserteth of their differences.

Sect. 15. Another argument p. 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 Christ never made. To this he answereth: 1. These Officers are only said to be new which were never appointed by Christ, and are contrary to the first appointment of Christ, but one set over many Pastors is not such; for besides the general practice from the first Primitive times, Christ himself laid the foundation of such an Office, in appointing Apostles. Reply. Here are many things hudled together, to excuse Episcopacy from Novelty, which we must examine▪ severally. 1. They are not a new Office, would he say, because Christ instituted such p. 72an Office, viz. Apostles. Reply. I hope he will not say, that the Office of an Apostle, and of a Diocesan Bishop, is the same Office; for the Apostles had much power, which Bishops have not, and were Extraordinary Officers, immediately called by God, so are not Bishops: and however there may be some resemblance between them, yet if they be not the same Office, it must be a new Office from what Christ appointed: It is not the want of Similitude, but the want of Identity, with what hath been before, that maketh a thing new; neither need we enter the dispute with him, what way extraordinary, and what not, in the Apostolick Office, nor doth the Question lie in that, as he alledgeth; for we maintain (and I think it will not be deni'd by him) that the Office in complexo, viz. as it did subsist in rerum naturâ, was extraordinary, and is ceased; and therefore whatever Office is made up of some part of the power they had, without the rest of it, must be a different Office from that, and so new. Indeed if Christ had given them their power by halves, and made the one half of it common to some Officer appointed by him to continue in the Church, viz. power over Presbyters, and the other half of it peculiar to them, then Bishops having power over Presbyters, though they had been a new Office from the Apostles, and not the same, yet should they have had the same Office with these others that we supposed, and so had not been new simply; but there being no such thing, they must be in another Office than Christ ever appointed, and so simply new. Wherefore it is an unreasonable demand of the Author, p. 195. that we must prove power over Presbyters to be extraordinary, before we say it must cease: For it is enough that the whole Office be extraordinary, that it be not a patern for any other Office that should be the same: Yea, we can easily prove that that power, as in the Apostles, and making up the Complex p. 73of their Office, was extraordinary, because it cannot survive the Office it self under that notion; and we can also prove, that Christ never instituted any such power by it self, and without the other parts of the Apostolick Office: whence it clearly followeth, that such a power by it self (which is a clear description of the Episcopal Office) is divers from all the Offices iustituted by Christ, and so is a new Office: What he saith of the ceasing of this power with the Apostles, as to its necessity, but not as to its lawfulness, is most impertinent, and a begging of the Question; for the conclusion of the Argument is, that it is unlawful, because it hath no institution, that institution which it had in the Apostles being ceased. His confirmation of this his distinction containeth a manifest falshood, viz. to make a thing unlawful, saith he, which was before lawful, there must be an express prohibition forbidding the use of such a thing: This, I say, applied to the matter in hand, is most false, for we speak of things which have their lawfulness only from institution, viz. Authority given to one over others: now that which is thus lawful, becometh unlawful, meerly by the withdrawing of the Institution, though no express prohibition of it be made. As is evident from the like case among men, when a King giveth a Commission to a Judge, it is lawful for him to act in that capacity: now if the King shall call in his Commission, though there be no express forbidding of the man, I suppose it is now become unlawful for him to act. Just so is our case; one Pastor can have no authority over another, unless it be given him by Christ, who ascended up on high, and received these gifts for men, Eph. 4. Now Christ had given once such a power to men, viz. the Apostles, this he hath now withdrawn, by not giving such Commission to any others, but the Apostles; for I suppose (to follow the former example) that when a Judge which had a Commission p. 74dieth, it is a sufficient withdrawing of his Commission, that the King doth not give it to any other who may succeed him: wherefore any who take that power to them, do it without Commission from Christ, which is unlawful.

Sect. 16. Another Answer he bringeth to this argument, p. 195. on which he insisteth much, as a foundation tending to establish his whole Cause, but I hope it shall prove a ruinous foundation. The Answer is this; The extending of any Ministerial power, is not the appointing of any new, but a determining the extent of that in actu secundo, which every Minister hath in actu primo. For clearing this, he undertaketh two things. 1. To shew that the power of every Minister doth primarily and habitually respect 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 extensive power to some particular persons, for the more convenient exercise of their common power.Before I come to examine what he saith to this purpose, let me note: 1. That he speaketh here in a new strain, before he had attributed this power of determining to the Magistrate, now the Officers of the Church must have it, which I confess is more fit: But he soon repenteth, and in the end of the same page maketh it lye between the Pastors and Magistrate, whether he please. It is strange to see how those who loose hold of the truth, hang as Meteors, 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 controversie among them against whom he disputeth) he establisheth by five strong Arguments; but for that part where the stress of the matter lieth, he hath not brought so much as one reason to evince what he saith, but some few bare Assertions for the clearing of it; and indeed it p. 75is sometimes easier to prove the thing that is not, than the thing that is denied, even to such able men as Mr. Stillingfl. But let us now attend to what he saith for his Opinion: We have seen, saith he, that their power extendeth to the care of the Churches in common; that the restraint of this power is a matter of order and decency in the Church. Here are two things, the former of which we have heard, and seen solidly proved; but the latter I have not yet seen, where he hath done any thing but asserted it, as he here doth: but sure, it being a matter of such concernment and controversie, needed some more proof; wherefore I cannot pass it so slightly as he hath done. We may distinguish a twofold restraining (the same holdeth in enlarging) of the exercise of the power of Church-Officers, viz. in respect of the Object of it, and in respect of the acts of it. Restraint, in respect of the object of this power, may be subdivided: First, when that power is permitted or appointed to be exercised over more or fewer objects of the same kind, which it doth respect by the appointment of Christ; as that a Minister should have a narrower or larger bounds for his Parish, or more or fewer people to watch over; and so of the limiting of Presbyteries, Synods, &c. This restraint, or enlargement of power in its exercise, we acknowledge to be a matter of order and decency, and may be determined by the prudence of the Church. Secondly, when it is extended to the objects of another kind, or restricted from the whole Species of these objects that Christ hath appointed it for; as when a Bishop by himself, who by Christs Institution hath only power over the people, getteth power, given him by man, over his fellow Pastors; and when a Presbyter, who by Christs Institution hath a power over the Flock to rule them, is hindred from the exercise of this power altogether, and is set only to feed, and this ruling power, as to its exercise, is wholly p. 76devolved upon another: This we deny to be a matter of order and decency committed to the Churches prudence. Restraint and enlargement, in respect of acts of power, is when some acts which may be by Christs Institution exercised by all Presbyters, are only permitted to be exereised by some, and not by others; as Ordination, Church-censures: and when some are authorized to do some acts of power that Christs Institution giveth them no Commission unto; this, together with that restraint mentioned in the second member of the subdivision, we prove, not to be matters of order, left to the prudence of the Church, but to be the setting up of a new Office in the Church. 1. Order that the Church is commanded to look after, requireth the right circumstantiating of these acts which Christ hath appointed to be done in his Church; as that they be done in fit time, place, method, &c. neither can this ordering of things reach beyond the determination of circumstances, for whatever is more than this, is not an ordering of that action unto which the circumstances do belong, but an instituting of a new action; because (for example) the right order of reading doth not require prayer, or singing to be joyned with it, but respecteth only the circumstances of reading it self: now, such restraining or enlarging of the exercise of power, is no right circumstantiating of it, but some other thing; it being no circumstance of the exercise of Pastoral power, whether he shall rule or not, but an essential part (I mean as to the integrality, it being an integral part) of that power which Christ hath given him, as is confessed: also, giving the exercise of that power to one which belongeth to many, is not adding of a circumstance, but a supernumerary part of power (as to its exercise) above these parts that Christ hath given them; ergo, this is no ordering of the exercise of power, but setting up of it a new. 2. Order that belongeth p. 77to the prudence of the Church, is that unto which confusion is opposite; then is that order obtained, when all confusion is avoided; but confusion may be avoided, without this restraining and enlarging of Church-power by men, else it were in no case lawful to let power be exercised as it is instituted by Christ, because we must always be careful to avoid confusion; ergo, I confess restraining of the exercise of power, as to objects of the same kind, as fixing of Parishes, is necessary to avoid confusion: but this cannot be said of taking power of ruling out of the hands of Presbyters, and giving it to Bishops; else we must say that Episcopacy is necessary, which destroyeth this mans Hypothesis. If it be said that sometimes it falleth out that this is necessary to avoid confusion, and then Episcopacy is necessary. Ans. If we should grant that it is sometimes useful to avoid confusion, as that which may be the fruit of Parity, yet it cannot be said that Parity it self is confusion: now, it is not in the Churches power to take her own way, to avoid whatever may have a bad effect (for the best things may be such) but she must shun that which is evil by a right managing, not by laying aside that which is good: wherefore seeing Order is consistent with Parity, and Parity with the Institution of Christ, and Imparity goeth at least a step beyond the Institution, and taketh that from men which Christ gave them, and giveth it to some to whom he gave it not, this cannot be a right ordering of his Institution, but rather setting up some other thing in the place thereof. 3. The right ordering of the exercise of that power which Christ hath given to men, must consist in determining of these things which he hath not determined, and yet are necessary to be determined, as time, place, extent of Parishes, &c. for if men either take upon them to determine in these matters, which he hath already determined by his Institution, or to p. 78determine things that he hath left at liberty, because the determination was not needful to his design, they then, would be wiser then he, and do not order his Institutions, but set up their own. Now this which our Author calleth Ordering is guilty of both these; for Christ by giving Ruling Power to all Presbyters hath declared his Will that they shall all Rule, and especially by requiring an ability for this, as a necessary qualification of them, who should be put unto that Office: do not men then, by appointing who should Rule, pass their determination on what he hath already determined, and that contrary to what he hath appointed. Again, Christ 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 order that Government that Christ hath appointed, and not rather to set up new Officers that men have devised.

Sect. 17. Next he subjoyneth a strange assertion. Now, saith he, in matters of common concernment, without all question, it is not unlawful, when the Church judgeth it most fit for edification, to grant to some the executive part of that power, which is originally and fundamentally common to them all. Answ. If it be so, all this pains that our Author is at, is needless, and his Book to no purpose: For I mistake much, if the main business in it be not to prove the lawfulness of this, which here he asserteth to be unquestionably lawful. For he confesseth that ruling power is given by Christ to all Presbyters: then, we must either say that it is his institution that they all exercise it and so parity is his institution: or, that the executive part of it may be given to some, or may be common to them all; and so the form of Government may be left indifferent is the scope of this Book. Now if it be unquestionable, what needeth all this pains about it. p. 79But I conceive, this confident assertion is put instead of the Arguments, whereby this undertaking of his should have been confirmed: It is an easie thing, when one cannot find proofs for their opinion to say, it is out of Question, but it is an unhandsome way of disputing, especially unbeseeming the person, who could not but know that this is denied by his Opposites, and is the main hinge of the Controversie in hand. We do maintain this Antithesis, that it is the Question between us and them who are for the indifferency of Church Government, whether the exercise of Ruling Power may be taken out of the hands of Ministers, and given unto one, to be Bishop over them: and we maintain the Negative as that which should be out of Question: and this we shall not barely assert, as Mr. Stilling f. hath done his Opinion. 1. Then, this taking the exercise of that power from men, which Christ hath given them is unwarrantable; ergo, it is unlawful; I hope, the consequence will not be denied: for what we lawfully do must be some way warranted, either by a Command or a Permission. The Antecedent I prove, because a warrant for such a practice cannot be shewed, and further, if there were any warrant for it, it must either be from Christs command, or 2. From his express Permission, or 3. From the Law of Nature, or 4. From want of a Law forbidding it: But none of these do warrant it, not the First nor Second, for our Opposite cannot produce such Command or Permission, either directly let down or drawn by consequence from it. Nor the Third, for then they must produce some dictate of the Law of Nature which giveth leave to do this; but what that shall be I understand not. Nature indeed teacheth, that a Society may use means, for its own Peace and Order: but this may be without hindering the exercise 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 p. 80also teacheth that when more have a Common power, they may consult about the best way of Managing it; but it doth not teach that they may mannage it otherwise then it is committed to them by him who gave it; which they must do if they put it into the hands of one, which is given to more: especially, when it may be managed well without such crossing the Institution of it. Besides all this, Nature can never warrant this alienation of the Power that Christ hath given to his Servants; because Nature doth only warrant us to step beside Christs Institution (in his matters) where Institution is not sufficient to attain that which is naturally necessary; or when the Acting only by Institution would cross Nature: but there is no natural necessity of giving all power to a Bishop, which Christ hath given to Presbyters: neither doth leaving the exercise of it in common cross Nature: Ergo Nature doth not warrant this practice. Neither can the fourth warrant it, for then it should be in the power of men to take all the power that Ministers have from Christ out of their hands and give it to one, so that only my Lord Bishop might preach, baptise, &c. as well as that he only may rule; for their is no Law forbidding the Church, to lay all the parts of Pastoral power on one, more then forbidding to lay one part of it on one. Sure sobriety and due reverence to the Institutions of Christ would teach us to think, that while he hath given equal power to many it should be a sufficient forbidding, that any be so bold as to lay the exercise of that power on one, taking it from the rest.

Sect. 18. 2. I prove it thus. When Christ giveth a power to his Servants to manage the affairs of his Church, it is not only a Licence, whereby they are authorized to do such work, if they think fit, but it is a trust: they get it as a charge that they must give account of, as is evident from the command to this purpose given them, Act. 20. 28. take heed to the p. 81Flock over which the Holy Ghost hath made you Overseers: here is a Command to Overseers to do that work, and they must give an account of this their charge, Heb. 13. 17. Rulers who must be obeyed are such who must give an account. Now it is not lawful for one, who getteth such a Trust, to lay it on another: neither may any take it out of his hands to bestow it upon another without his leave, who gave that trust: when Christ hath Commanded Ministers to rule, and will seek account of them, may they lay their work on a Bishop? will it be well taken in the day of Account, to say, they committed their Flock to another to keep, who left them to the Wolf, or scattered, and slew them: will not the Lord say to them why did not ye feed them your selves? Sure Christ will require account of them to whom he gave the charge, and that is of Pastors, neither will he ask Account of Bishops, except for their Usurpation. Ergo it is not lawful, to take the exercise of Church Power out of the hands of Ministers, and give it to a Bishop. 3. Proof. If Presbyters, who have received Power from Christ may put the exercise of it into the hands of a Bishop alienating it from themselves; why may not Bishops devolve their Power on one who shall be over them, and so we shall have an Universal Bishop the Pope; in whom shall rest all Church Power, and at whose direction it shall be exercised? If that may be done, there is no shadow of Reason why this may not be done, for if once the Power be taken out of the hand of them to whom Christ hath given it, then prudence must be the only Director to teach us who must have it: now prudence will as well say, that Bishops must have one over them to keep them in Order and peace, as that Presbyters must have one over them. Neither is there here any inconvenience that is not there; for that one may turn to tyranny as well as the other: and a Bishop cannot oversee his charge, without substitutes, more then the Pope p. 82can do: the one may substitute Bishops, Cardinals, &c. as well as the other may substitute Dean, Prebends, Archdeacon, &c. Now, I hope, Mr. Stillingfleet is not come to that, to think the Papal Office an indifferent Ceremony. ergo. neither should he think so of Episcopacy. 4. If Presbyters may devolve the exercise of that power that Christ hath given them into the hands of a Bishop, then they may also give away with their power the very Office that Christ hath given them: But this they may not. ergo I prove the Major, for when they devolve the exercise of their ruling power on the Bishop, they not only consent, that they shall rule the people, which they might do: But they make it unlawful for themselves to rule, yea, they give up themselves to be ruled and commanded by them, so that he is their Judge and cannot be judged by them, in case of male-administration (at least this is true de singulis if not de omnibus) 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 under the command of another, so that I may not act any thing in reference to the People but by his authority, how have I power to rule? sure a power is the possibility of the act (quantum est ex parte causae) and a moral power is such a lawfulness of the act, but in this case Presbyters want that possibility, or lawfulness of that exercise of Ruling; and that so, as the defect or hindrance ex parte causae, is in themselves, who should put forth the acts, ergo, they want not onelyonly the exercise but the very power of Ruling, which Christ gave them, in such a case. The Minor of the Argument is evident; for such an alienation were a clear contradicting of Christ: he saith it shall be lawful for you (such a one being lawfully put into the Ministry) to rule: he by this alienating saith, it shall not be lawful for me to rule. If it be said, that Christs gift maketh it lawful for such a p. 83one to rule, but not in all cases; as suppose the good of the Church requires that this power be taken from him; his alienating maketh it onelyonly unlawfull in this case, when for the good of the Church, he hath quit his right: so that here there is no opposition; Christ giveth him a jus in actu primo, he alienateth onelyonly this jus in actu secundo, as Mr. Stillingfleet doth express it. Answ. 1. However there may be some colour of reason why this may be done in some extraordinary cases; when Christs institution (which is calculated to ordinary cases, and must ordinarily take place) cannot reach the end of Government: yet to say that it may be done ordinarily, cannot but clash with Christs institution: for when Christ giveth ruling power to Presbyters, though we may think that it is not his will, that they must needs exercise it in all cases, yet must we think that he intendeth they should exercise it ordinarily: for why giveth he them a power, which they as readily never as ever act, and that as men please to determine? we must not think that it is the intent of Christs Commission to his Servants, that men may without the force of necessity 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 supposed without ground that the good of the Church can ordinarily require the restraining power given by Christ; for if we speak of what is ordinarily good for the Church, how can we better discern that than by looking into Christs institution? wherefore, seeing by this equal power, at least in actu primo is given to Presbytery; we are to think, that the exercise of this power is best for the Church; though ambitious men, and they who would flatter the Magistrate, think otherwise; yea though the best of men should dissent, sure Christs giving such a power saith more for the goodness of the exercise of it then mens opinions, though seeming to have a foundation p. 84on some inconveniencies of it can say against it: especially considering, what ever way beside, men devise, is attended with as great, if not greater inconveniencies of another nature. 3. I have already made it appear, that this alienation of power given by Christ doth not only reach the actus secundus of it, but even the actus primus; seeing a man is not in capacity to recal his deed, and reassume the exercise of his power, though it were improved never so much against the end of Christs giving, and his alienating of it.

Sect. 19. 5. Proof (which is directly against enlarging the exercise of Church Power in the hands of any beyond what Christ hath given them) if the exercise of that power, which Christ hath given to all, may be taken from the rest and given to one, then that one getteth a power both in actu primo & in secundo, which he had not from Christ, but this is unlawful, ergo The Major I prove: for it is clear he getteth power in actu secundo, which he had not from Christ, ergo he getteth such power in actu primo, seeing actus secundus cannot be without primus, nor lawful exercise of power without the jus or power it self. If it be said, that Christ giveth only the actus primus, and that so as it extendeth to the whole Church: and therefore no actus secundus of power can be given to one, which doth extend further than this. Answ. 1. It is true, he giveth formally only the actus primus, but the actus secundus doth result from it, and therefore he giveth both. 2. It is true, the power that Christ giveth doth extend to the whole Church, but this must be understood with a twofold distinction. Dist. 1. Disjunctive it is true, that is, every Minister hath a power to rule whatever part of the Church, this, or that, or another; so that no part of it is without his Commission, as that he should go beyond his bounds in being set over it. Conjunctive, it is false, that is, Christ hath not given so much of the actus primus of p. 85power to rule all, or many Congregations. Dist. 2. When Christ giveth the actus primus of power to a Minister, extending to the whole Church; it is to be understood in adequate, i. e. that he hath a share in that power so extended; and may in conjunction with other rule the whole Church: not adequate, i. e. Christ hath not given to any such a power, as that he by himself or with a few excluding the rest, who are also in the Commission, rule the whole Church. So that when ever any one exerciseth authority by himself, or excluding others, who have the same power granted by Christ, over more than his particular Congregation, over which he may have personal inspection; he taketh a power in actu secundo, where Christ hath given him no jus, nor actus primus of power. The Minor of the argument is manifest; for when both power and exercise of it is given to a man, which Christ hath not given; this is setting up a new Office, which Christ hath not set up: for what is an Office in the Church, but a power and a lawful exercise of it? but this our Author confesseth to be unlawful, ergo 6. Proof. 'Tis presumption even among men for a servant to commit that work to another to do, which his Master hath given him to do, except he know, that he hath his Masters leave so to do: this is so well known, that I need not insist on it, ergo it is much presumption, when Christ hath committed the ruling of his house to every Minister, that some should devolve that work on a Bishop to do it for them, unless they could shew Christs warrant for this, which if Mr. Stillingfleet or any other will do, we shall acquiesce. If there be any disparity in this comparison, I am sure it will tend to the strengthening, not the weakening of our argument, for we are more absolutely under Christs command, than Servants are under their Masters; his commands are more perfect and effectual to compass their end, without our taking our own way in managing p. 86obedience to them, then mens are: also, the there is a greater tie to cleave scrupulously to his injunctions than to mens: also the matters about which they are, be of more weight, and miscarriage in them more dangerous, then mens commands. All which make it more absurd to commit the exercise of our power, that he giveth to others, than for Servants to do so with their Masters work.

Sect. 20. For better understanding of what he had said, our Author subjoyneth a distinction of a twofold power belonging to Church Officers, viz. a Power of Order in preaching the word, visiting the sick, administring the Sacraments, &c. this he maketh to be inseparably joyned to the function; and to belong to every ones personal capacity, both in actu primo, and actu secundo, and a power of Jurisdiction, in visiting Churches, overseeing particular Pastors, Ordination, Church Censures, making Rules for decency: this he maketh to be in every Presbyter quoad aptitudinem and habitually, so as he hath a jus to it in actu primo; but the exercise and limitation of it, and some further power of choise and delegation to it, and some further Authority besides the power of Order. And when this power, either by consent of the Pastors of the Church, or by the appointment of the Christian Magistrate, or both, is devolved to some particular persons; though quoad aptitudinem, the power remain in every Presbyter; yet quoad executionem, it belongs to them who are so appointed. To this, I reprove a few things briefly. 1. I take notice here of a contradiction in terminis, to what he taught, Part. 1. c. 2. p. 41. and we refuted p. there he made the power of Order peculiar to Ministers and power of Jurisdiction peculiar to the Magistrate, describing both powers no otherwise then he doth here, and yet here he giveth the power of Jurisdiction as well as of Order to Ministers. 2. Seeing he acknowledgeth both powers p. 87quoad jus to be equally given by Christ to all Ministers; it is strange that he should deny that men may restrain the one (for he confesseth the actus secundus of it to be inseparably joined to the Office) and yet doth boldly affirm that they may restrain the other; without giving the least shew of permission that they have from Christ who gave both powers, so to tamper with the one more then with the other. If Christ hath made no difference between these (and if he hath it should have been produced) how dare men do it? I confess, Nature maketh a necessity of restricting the power of Jurisdiction: for if every one should Rule, when and where he pleased, there would be confusion; and therefore it is needful that every one have their own charge which they exercise this power over: but this is common to the power of Order also (though with some difference) for it is not fit that every Minister should preach and baptize where and when he pleaseth, without any limitation. Neither could this be without confusion. Also Christ hath made a limitation of the exercise of the power of Jurisdiction; for by giving it to many, and making it relate to things of common concernment, he hath, eo ipso, determined, that none of these who have it, shall exercise it by himself nor without the concurrence and consent of them, who are equal in Commission with him. This limitation of the exercise we confess to be warrantable: but what reason there is, I cannot understand, why men should take away the exercise of ruling power from many, and give it to one, more than they can take away the exercise of preaching power, and so give it to some, as it shall not be lawful for them to preach, but only to rule, more than they can take away the exercise of both powers, seeing Christ hath equally given them. Sure it is an impregnable Argument that our Author here furnisheth us with against himself; men p. 88may not restrain the exercise of the power of order, further than Nature maketh it necessary; Ergo, they may not any further restrain the exercise of the power of Jurisdiction, because Christ hath not made such a difference in his giving these powers to men. If it be said, that the restraint of the power of Jurisdiction is sometimes necessary, because Parity breeds Factions, and many are unfit to rule. Ans. Even so, letting all preach, doth often breed Heresie, many preach false Doctrine, and many are unfit to preach. So this argument must either plead for the restraint of both powers, or of neither. Let us then see what must be the remedy of this abuse of the power of order, and the remedy of the abuse of the other must be proportionable: sure the remedy is not to restrain the exercise of the power of preaching (except it be for a time, in expectation of their amendment, which holdeth also with reference to ruling power) but to put such unfit men out of the Ministry. Were it fit to lay the work of an Heretical Preacher upon a Curate, and let him still have the charge of the Flock, though his Curate doth the work for him? No, but he should be removed, and another put in his place: Even so, they who are unfit to rule, must not have a Bishop do it for them, but be removed, that other fit men may be put in their place; seeing ruling abilities are a necessary qualification of a Minister, as well as preaching abilities, as was shewed before. If Parity breed Factions, we must censure the guilty, not cross Christs Institutions in the exercise of that power he hath given.

Sect. 21. 3. It is not good sense that he saith, (speaking of the power of Jurisdiction) that though it belong habitually, and in actu primo to all, yet in a constituted Church, some further Authority is necessary, besides the power of order. Whether this be the Printers fault, or the Authors, I know not: but sure, p. 89the power of order is no part of that Authority by which the power of Jurisdiction is exercised. 4. He leaveth us in suspence about the power of restraining the exercise of the power of Jurisdiction; for he implieth, that it may be done by the consent of the Pastors, or by the appointment of the Magistrate, or both. If this power that Christ hath given his Servants may be taken from them in its exercise, it is very fit we should 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, sure it is not thus left at randome, that it should be primi occupantis: Pastors themselves cannot do it, for they have got the charge; and they, not the Bishop whom they entrust, must give an account: The Magistrate may not do it, for he is no ruler of the Church; but this is the highest act of ruling the Church, and of ruling and disposing of the Rulers of it as he pleaseth; and if neither may do it, both may not do it, seeing the reasons brought exclude both from any measure of power in that thing. I do not stand on the Authority of Camero (which is all the proof he hath for his opinion) cited p. 198. viz. Ordinatio non fit à Pastore quatenus Pastor est, sed quatenus ad tempus singulare authoritatem obtinet: Neither shall I strive to strain it to a sound sense; but be satisfied with the truth, that we have upon better grounds than Camero's Authority established, viz. that Ordination, and other acts of Church-power, are done by Pastors, not by virtue of any superadded power, or Delegation that they have from men, above what Christ hath given them in their Pastoral Office, but by vertue of that power he hath given to all Pastors, though the conveniency of exercising it, hic & nunc, requires the concurring of some more circumstances: Ergo, that other Pastors joyn in Ordination; that it be not without the limits which are fixed (for order) for the inspection of p. 90that Society of Pastors, whereof such an one is a Member; or if it be without these limits, that it be not without a special Call from them, who should there exercise their Authority. The Conclusion of our Author needeth small Animadversion, supposing what hath been already said: By this, saith he, we may already understand how lawful the exercise of an Episcopal power may be in the Church of God (yea, by what we have said may be seen how unlawful it is) supposing the equality of the power of order: (But we must also suppose (and it hath been yielded) the equality of the power of Jurisdiction, at least in actu primo; and that may shew us the unlawfulness of Episcopacy▪) And how incongruously they speak, who supposing an equality in the Presbyters of the Church at first, do cry out that the Church takes upon her the Office of Christ, if she delegates any to a more peculiar exercise of the power of Jurisdiction: Yea, we have made it appear, that they speak most congruously to the thing; for it is Christs Office to give the exercise of power to such 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 peculiar exercise of the power of Jurisdiction; when indeed, setting up of a Bishop, is a laying others aside from the exercise of it at all, and suffering them to do nothing that way, but by his Authority: yea, that which we have all this while disputed against, is yet less intollerable than is our case, where Bishops have most absolute and Lordly powers, and delegate it to whom they will, Lay-men or others, and Presbyters have no power at all.

Sect. 22. Another Argument he propoundeth, p. 198. from the perfection of Scripture, from which it doth much derogate, to say, that in it Christ hath p. 91not laid down an immutable form of Church-Government. This Argument he almost tusheth at; but that is easier than to answer it solidly: Unto it he bringeth three Answers, all which will not make up a satisfactory one. The first 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 sufficient to bring men to Salvation; which is sufficiently acknowledged to be, if all things necessary to be believed or practised, be contained in the Word of God: Now that which we assert, not to be fully laid down in Scripture, is not pleaded to be any ways necessary, nor to be a matter of Faith, but something left to the Churches liberty. Reply. I perceive it to be ordinary with this Author (I observed it before) to slight with confidence that which he hath little to say against in reason. What a pittiful come off is this? that the not determining the form of Government is not against the perfection of the Scripture, because it is not a thing necessary, but left to the Churches liberty: What it is to beg the question, if this be not, I know not; for the question is, whether the form be determined in Scripture, or left to the Churches liberty: the latter he maintaineth, we assert the former, and prove it, because otherwise the Scripture were imperfect: He answereth, it doth not follow that the Scripture is imperfect, because the form of Government is left to the Churches liberty. Is this the easie dispatch of this Argument which was promised? 2. If the end of Scripture be to be an adequate Rule of Faith and manners; then sure, in a special way, of Religious manners or practises, among which is the way of managing Church-Government, being a Religious thing; for we speak of Government as it is peculiar to the Church: hence then it must belong to its perfection to lay down this, especially p. 92seeing the Scripture hath told us, that this is one of its particular ends, to direct the Pastors of the Church how to behave themselves in the House of God, 1 Tim. 3. 15. but this it cannot do compleatly, without setting down a form of Government, for general Rules will not tell a Pastor whether he must exercise his ruling power with others, or lay it over on my Lord Bishop; Ergo, the want of this form in Scripture doth derogate from that perfection which our Author confesseth to be in it. 3. By things necessary, I hope he doth not mean only necessary to salvation, but necessary to these particular ends propounded in the Scripture, one of which is the right managing of Church-Government. Now if all things necessary to this be laid down in Scripture, there cannot want a form of Government in it, for without that Government cannot be managed. His second answer is, that the doing of a thing not contained in Scripture, with an opinion of its necessity, doth destroy the Scriptures perfection; and so in that sense every additio perficiens is corrumpens; such are the Popish Traditions; but the doing of a thing without the opinion of its necessity doth not destroy it. Reply. This is a poorer shift 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 against the Scriptures sufficiency; for sure if it be not in Scripture, it must be added, seeing Nature maketh it necessary: but it is the opinion of its not being in Scripture that we plead against; and therefore this Answer doth not at all touch the Argument, neither is the example of Popish Traditions to the purpose; for we do not say that they are against Scripture perfection, because they are held not to be found in it, (for that is most true) but because they are thought needful to be added to it. 2. It is against the perfection of Scripture to say any addition to it is necessary for attaining p. 93its end; whether that particular thing added to it be necessary, or its defect may be as well supplied by another thing of that kind; as if any should maintain that we must have more Sacraments than are in Scripture, and should not think this in particular necessary, but leave it to the Churches liberty, what particular Sacrament should be superadded: But Master Stillingfleet's Opinion maketh an addition necessary, viz. that there be a form of Government which is not in Scripture, though it leave the particular form to the Churches liberty; Ergo, it is against the perfection of Scripture; and this addition being of a thing in its general nature necessary to an end that the Scripture aimeth at, viz. the right governing of the Church, and not being found in Scripture, so much as that men may determine it, it is such an additio perficiens as the Author confesseth to be corrumpens. 3. By this Answer, none of the Popish Traditions are additions to the Scripture, or imply its imperfection; for though they be held necessary in the general, yet in particular they cannot so be held; for either they were freely determined by the Church, and so they might not have been, and therefore are not necessary, or the Church was necessitated to determine them by some antecedent objective truth in the things: if so, they must be the Dictates of Nature, which are no additions to Scripture; wherefore this Answer destroyeth it self. 4. At least, by this Answer, all the Popish and Prelatical Ceremonies, and whatsoever superstitious men can devise to bring into the worship of God, is no addition to the Scripture, nor a blot upon its perfection; for these are not held for necessary things, but indifferent, and only necessary when commanded by Authority; which necessity, I suppose, Mr. Stilling. will plead for to his form of Government. Now this Consequence I hope he will not own; wherefore he may be ashamed to p. 94own that from which it doth so clearly follow. His third Answer is yet of less weight, viz. that the Essentials of Church-Government are in Scripture, not the Circumstantials. Reply. If he meaneth, as sure he doth, the Essentials of Government in its general and abstract notion, in which it is not practicable without a particular form, he saith nothing to the purpose: The Scripture may be an imperfect rule for Church-Government, though it have these; if he mean the Essentials of a particular form, he destroyeth his own cause. Now we maintain, that to the perfection of Scripture there is required not only a general notion of Government, but so much as is sufficient light to direct the practice of Government: this cannot be without the institution of a particular form, for Government otherwise is not practicable. If it be said, that the general rules in Scripture about Government want nothing requisite for the compleat practise of Government, but the determination of circumstances, which cannot belong to Scripture perfection. Ans. This we deny (if by general Rules he means, as sure he doth, such as do not determine a particular form) it is some more than a circumstance, whether Pastors exercise that power Christ hath given them, or commit it to a Bishop. I hope it is more than a bare circumstance in Civil Government, whether the power be in the hand of one, or a few, or all the people, even so 'tis here: yea, herein lieth the very Essence of a form of Government; if this then be not found in Scripture, the Essentials of a form are wanting; but a form is essential to Government, considered as practicable; Ergo, some of the Essentials of Government are wanting.