Answer to Stillingfleets Irenicum, Chapter 5
CHAP. V.
HAving refuted as he supposed the general Arguments, for a particular Form of Church-Government to have been laid down in Scripture; he cometh now to particular Arguments, which are brought for some one Form, and many he taketh much pains to refute in this Chapter, which I am confident never any did make Use of to prove what he opposeth. We shall let him pass with his supposed Victory over these, and only take notice of what opposeth the Truth we hold, or the Arguments by which it is established. I shall only note, not insist upon his large Harangue, by which in the beginning of this Chapter, he chargeth all who are not as Sceptical about Church-Government as himself, with prejudice, and following custome and education, rather than truth, and being loth to quit that opinion, though false, which once they have been engaged in. To which I say nothing, but let every one search his own Conscience, and see what grounds is Perswasion standeth upon. I hope the sincerity of many will be able to bear them out before God, and the solid Reasons they are able to produce will make them stand before men, against such reproaches of this Adversary. Neither shall I retaliate this his charity with the Jealousies of many who fear that they who cast Church-Government thus loose, that the Magistrate may dispose of it at his Pleasure, do fetch the strength of their Arguments, and the life of their perswasion, from no better Topicks then design to please them who can reward this their pains, or to hold fast that which is good (as some have spoken of their fat Beneficts) what ever side of the World be uppermost, to which end this opinion is a notable mean. I desire to judge no man, the Lord will ere long judge our opinions and motives too: but this I am sure of, we have no Worldly baits to allure us at this time, to plead for the Divine Right of Presbyteral Government, and if the Interest of Christ did not more move us than our own; we might with much Worldly advantage yield the cause. We do not insist on any of Christs acts towards the Apostles in calling them, sending them out either first or last, as Arguments for the Form of Church-Government; knowing that their Office being Extraordinary and Temporal, can be no Rule for the ordinary cases of the Church. Wherefore I pass over all that he writeth in this Chap. till p. 218. Where he undertaketh to vindicate two places of Scripture from determining Parity or Imparity in the Church. The first is Mat. 20. 25. to which is parallel Luk. 22. 25. The Kings of the Gentiles exercise Authority over them, and they that exercise authority over them, are called Benefactors; but ye shall not be so. Though I confess, there be other places more unquestionable to our purpose; yet I see not the weight of what he hath said against this place, being brought as an Argument against Imparity. His Answer is made up of two, First, he asserteth, and solidly proveth against Papists, that it is not the abuse of Power that is here forbidden, but that the Power it self spoken of is forbidden, as incompetent to Church-Officers; his Proofs for this I need not repeat, I accept it of him as a Concession. Secondly, He saith it is only Civil Power that is here forbidden; and so it doth not make against Imparity in Church-Officers, Reply. He keepeth his wonted way here, which is to take much pains, to prove what is least in debate with the adversaries he dealeth with: we do not question but the Power it self, not the abuse of it is here spoken against: but that it is Civil Power only we question; and that he hath not spent one word to prove. We affirm that Christ is here making a difference between his Apostles and Civil Governors in this; that one of them should not have Authority over another, as it is among Rulers of States and Kingdoms; and so that there should be no Imparity of Power among them; to prove this, I borrow the 3d reason by which Mr. Still. militateth against the abuse of Power being here meant, viz. This only can answer the Scope of the Apostles contention, which was about Primacy. The Sons of Zebedee would have been set over the rest, Mat. 20. and their Strife was, which should be foreign pro foreign (so Drusius cited by Leigh Crit. Sac.) that is, who should be Pope over the rest: now, though we deny not but theirs might be upon a Civil and Coactive Power, they dreaming of an earthly Kingdome of Christ, yet sure, this was neither mainly nor only in their design: not only, because they could not but know that Christs Kingdome, in which they were to be Officers, should be Spiritual, and conversant about the things of another life though, they thought it might be Worldly to, and therefore it could not be; but they designed a Supremacy in that respect also, not mainly, both because they could not but know that their main work both in teaching and ruling, was to be about the things of Eternity: as also it is evident from Luk. 22. 24. that their contention was about Supremacy in a Power that then they had begun to be partakers of, foreign: but they knew very well that yet they had not Civil Power: seeing then they contended about Ecclesiastical Supremacy, and Christs answer is suted to their Intention, and doth wholly discharge that Power whereof it speaketh: the first of which I have proved; the two latter Mr. Still. hath confessed: it followeth, that Christ doth here forbid all Superiority of the Apostles, one over another: so that not only Christ had not set one over the rest, but he will not permit themselves to do it if they would: foreign, is a Simple forbidding of it. Hence I inferre the Argument to our purpose thus, if the Apostles who had received equal power from Christ, might not delegate that Power to one whom they might set up as chief; then Presbyters may not do this neither, Ergo Imparity of Presbyters is unlawful. The consequence is evident, the antecedent I prove from parity of Reason: it is not immaginable that Presbyters may set one of themselves over themselves: and that Bishops may not do the like, and Apostles the like; seeing order may require the one as well as the other. Yea, Secondly, if there be a disparity of reason it maketh much for us, for sure the Apostles had more liberty of managing that Power, they had received from Christ, by prudence, than Pastors now have; wherefore they might far rather restrain the exercise of it in themselves, if they saw cause, than we may do. 3. I hope it will not be denied, that what is here said to the Apostles is not said to them as Apostles; but as Officers of the Church, who have received the same Power from Christ: that it is no Temporary, but an abiding precept: and therefore if it forbid superiority among the Apostles, so doth it among Presbyters, Mr. Still. p. 220. objecteth thus; `this place doth no waies imply a Prohibition of all inequality among Governours of the Church; for then the Apostles Power over ordinary Pastors should be forbidden. Ans. concedo totum: we also grant inequality among Pastors and Elders. But that which we plead is, that here is forbidden an inequality among them who are of the same Order: that when Christ hath given men the same Power and Office, as he did to the Apostles; they may not usurp power one over another, nor take it though others would give it them. This is clearly proved from what hath been said. And further, it may be hence also concluded, that the inequality which is among Church-Officers ought not to be such as is among the Governours of the World, where a single Person may have his under-Officers at his command: but that inequality must be of one order above another in place and rank, both which do concur jointly to the ruling of the Church; and thus also Episcopacy is here made unlawful. That Pride and Ambition is here forbidden, I readily grant him: but that these are not only forbidden, is clear from what hath been said.
Sect. 2. The next place that he considereth is Mat. 18. 15, 16, 17. Where, after private admonition is used in vain, we are commanded to tell the Church, and they who do not hear the Church, are to be counted as Heathens and Publicans. That which he first bringeth for an Answer to this place is, That because men of all Opinions about Church-Government make Use of it to establish their Opinions, therefore no Argument may be drawn from it for any opinion. This unhappy way of reasoning I have met with before and insist not now on it. It is the Devils way, I perceive, to raise contentions about truth among some; and having done this, to tempt others by these contentions to Schism and slighting of truth. But we must not quit the light held forth in this Scripture, because men have darkened it, by their raising dust about it: let us search the more soberly and carefully, not cast away the truth for this. Yet for all divers Opinions that have been broached about this place, Mr. Stilling. hath a new one of his own, which I shall briefly examine. The difficulty of the place (he saith well) lyeth in these two. 1. What are the offences here spoken of. 2. What is the Church mentioned. For the first, he asserteth (with more confidence than strength of Reason, when he saith, it is evident to any unprejudicated mind,) that the matters are not of scandal; but of private offence and injurie: this he proveth p. 222. (his Arguments we shall consider after.) For the Church, he proposeth at length the Erastian opinion, as very plausible: yet at last rejecteth it p. 224, 225. and returns to the Offences p. 226. which though he makes to be private differences and quarrels; yet he will not have them to be lawsuits, nor Civil causes; but such differences as respect persons, and not things. And then he determineth p. 227. that the Church is not here any Juridical Court acting by Authority; but a select Company, who by arbitration may compose and end the difference: and so concludeth p. 228. that here is nothing about Church-Government; though by Analogie some things about it may be hence drawn. This is the sum of this opinion, which I shall first refute and then consider his grounds for it.
Sect. 3. And first of all I cannot but wonder that this learned Author should with so much cofidence deny this place to speak of Church-Government; and not say something in answer to the many Arguments for establishing a Form of Government, which are drawn from it by many Learned men; as Gillespy in his Aarons Rod. Rutherford in his Jus Divin Reg. Eccles. Beza de Excom. & Presbyt. Cawdry of Church-reformation; and other Presbyterians: beside many Authors of other judgments. What? are all their Arguments unworthy to be taken notice of, and easily blown away with Mr. Still. his bare Assertion? for what he saith of the matters of offence spoken of in this place, he seemeth to aim at a new opinion, but I cannot see wherein it differeth from what the Erastians hold, save in its obscurity: for when he hath with them, made them to be no Scandals, nor Sins against God, but private injuries against our Neighbours, he will not have them to be Civil causes, or Law-suits; but such differences as respect Persons, not things. What these can be I cannot understand, for what wrong can I do to my Neighbour besides scandalising him by Sin against God, for which he may not Sue me at Law? if he mean not matters of Money or meum & tuum, but other injuries against ones Person, as beating, reproaches, slanders &c. (as I guess he doth, so far as I can see his opinion through the midst of his words) these are yet Civil causes, and matters of Law-Suit: and this is the one part of what the Erastians here understand: neither do I see any reason for understanding these here, and not other private Injuries, as the Erastians do: for is it imaginable that Christ would prescribe this course for redress of wrongs in our own Persons and names, and not also for wrongs in our Estates? but it may be he meaneth that though the injuries here meant, be in matters Civil; yet the design of the place is not to prescribe a way of making up the injury, but of taking away the animosities, and quarrels that these injuries breed among Christians; but this cannot hold; for sure the best way of allaying the animosities that arise about injuries done by one to another, must be by determining what is the due of each, and who doth, and who sustaineth the wrong, and so making reparation of the injury done. We must not then think that Christ hath appointed one course for repairing the wrong; and another for taking away contention about it: but it is his Will that Christians in such cases, either let their wrongs be judged by the arbitration of Friends; or if that cannot be, by that law: and whethersoever of these waies the matter be determined; that they should acquiesce, and not contend any more. Besides this, when I receive a private injurie from another, it is my duty to lay aside all grudge and animosity against him, which if I be willing to do, why should the matter be brought before others, or to the Church? if I be not willing to do it, it is not like that I will bring it thus to others, who may persuade me to lay aside animosity against him. I cannot understand how I can bring a matter of private wrong to be judged by others, except it be in reference to the getting of some reparation of that wherein I conceive my self to be wronged. If he mean that I should bring the matter before others, not that my animosity may be laid aside (that being my duty without such adoe) but that they may persuade him who hath wronged me to lay aside his grudg, and be reconciled to me: sure this cannot be the Scope of the place, both because Christ giveth another rule in that Case, which will sooner attain that end, viz. Forgive him, Lu. 17. 3. and indeed it is a more compendious way to allay his fury, to carry it dutifully, friendly and kindly to him, than to convent him before others. Also because it is a strange reflection of the Sence of the expression, Trespass against thee i. e. refuse to be reconciled to thee: sure there is no Warrant in Scripture or reason from the notation of the word, thus to expound it. And besides all this, this exposition destroys the Authors opinion, viz. that this place is not meant of Scandals; for when one hath wronged me, and I am willing to forgive him and be at peace with him, and he refuseth to be reconciled to me; this is a Sin against God, and a Scandal of an high nature. Now why the place should be meant of taking away this sort of Scandal and no other (seeing other Scandals also are Sins against the Scandalized, as is clear 1 Cor. 8. 12.) I think it is hard to conjecture except Mr. Still. must say so to make up the opinion that he intendeth to defend.
Sect. 4. But I shall now prove that this place speaketh purposely of Scandals, or Sins against God, whereby the Consciences of others are offended; and not of private Injuries. And that briefly because this is largely and fully performed by all our Authors who write against Erastians. 2. Our Lord had spent the former part of the Chapter about Scandals, especially in pressing your shunning to give offence, and in shewing the danger of offences; both to the offended, and especially to the offender, vers. 7. Now in all this discourse he had said nothing of the means of taking away of Scandals: wherefore seeing he joyneth these words we dispute about, to the former discourse of Scandal; it may be out of question that he is here laying down that way of removing these Scandals when they should arise in his Church, that the evils he had spoken of may not ensue upon them. 2. The design of this Remedy here prescribed is to gain the faulty Person: now this expression of gaining Men from that which is Evil, is in Scripture only used in reference to Sins against God, which are apt to destroy men, and whereby they are lost. 3. this evil from which the Person is to be gained, is Sin or Scandal. If it be said that it is gaining of a brother, when he is Persuaded to lay aside animosity against a brother, and to be reconciled to him: this is true only and so far as such animosity is Sin: for on no other account, freeing of one from it can be called gaining him in Scripture-Phrase; and if there animosities be here spoken of only as they are Scandals, then the Scope of the place is to redress Scandals; for à quatenus ad omne valet consequentia. 3. To sin against a brother is (in the Phrase of the New Testament) mainly, if not only, to wrong his Conscience or Spiritual Estate by Scandal. 1 Cor. 8. 12. or to be guilty of Sin against God in his sight or conscience Luk. 15. 18, 21. so Luk. 17. 3, 4. Neither can any instance be brought where it signifies a private injury as such; therefore it must be meant of Scandal. 4. In redressing of private Injuries in a charitable way, it is not usual to lead Witnesses: but these belong to a judicial proceeding; but here the matter is to be established by Witnesses, Ergo it is a matter not to be transacted in such a way as this Author would have these private Injuries. 5. It is unimaginable that Christ would have us count our Brother a Heathen or a Publican, and would have him bound in Heaven for persisting in a fact that either is no sin against God, or which is not considered as a sin against God: doth the Holy Ghost any where speak so of private injuries, considered as such? no sure; but if private injuries are to be thus noted with censure by God and Men, it is under the notion of heinous sins as they offend God and scandalize his people, and if so: then Scandals are here meant; for if such injuries be here spoken of for that which is common to other Scandals, and especially private injuries not particularly mentioned, but set down under the general name of Sin; what a boldness is it to exclude other sins, and make these only to be here spoken of?
Sect. 5. Next, I come to consider his Notion about the Church, to which these offences must at last be brought for remedy: It is, saith he, no juridical Court, but a select company called together by the party offended, who by arbitration may compose and end the difference. Against this Conceit I bring these Reasons: 1. This company is to be called together by the offended party; for the Text carrieth the whole managing of the business to be by him; and it is very like the stubborn offender will not be active in this: now, is this a way that our Lord would prescribe for taking away the distemper of a galled mind, that his Adversary (so the stubborn offender looketh upon the other) should chuse the persons before whom he is to be convented, and who should judg him? this I cannot be induced to believe, except I see more proof of it than our Author's bare saying it is so. 2. We must conceive that these three steps of proceeding here prescribed, have some notable difference one from another, and are remedies of different Vertues and operations applyed to this stubborn Disease. Now the first step is secret Admonition: the second is Private and Charitable, not Judicial; the third then must be different from both: which I cannot conceive how it is, if it be not authoritative. In this Authors opinion, it is no more but this, when two or three Friends cannot accommodate the matter, then take a few more, having no more but the same power the former two or three had: now what great influence can 5, or 6, or 10 have to persuade a stiff offender, more than 2 or or 3 using the same motives? 'tis not to be imagined that the difference can be such as Christ intendeth when he prescribeth this as a remedy of that evil the other could not cure. 3. When Christ is here prescribing a cure for offences which may fall out among his people, and is so exact in describing all the steps of it and final result thereof; we must conceive that his last cure will be such as will effectually root out that evil so, as, that it do not any more hurt his Church or those who are harmed by it. Now if the last mean be only arbitration, and no juridical authoritative act, this end can never be attained: for neither is the stubborn offender gained, nor is he taken away that he may not the same way trouble the other party as before. What great matter is gained if the wilful party will not hear this advising Church our Author dreameth of? he is still a Church-member, enjoying the publick fellowship of the people of God, for all that these arbitrators can do: and suppose some do withdraw private intimacy with them, yet we cannot think that all are obliged to it by the authority of private arbitrators declaring him stubborn, when all do not know the causes which made them so determine, nor the proofs that did convince them of the truth of what was alledged against him. It is then evident that this last Remedy of the miscarriage (be what it will) of a stubborn offender which Christ here prescribeth, is an authoritative act, and therefore the Church here is no company of private men for arbitration. 4. Though we grant that the word foreign signifieth any company called together, yet here it must be of more restricted signification; and must needs signify a company called out of the World by the Gospel to worship God, and to serve him in the managing of his affairs and institutions; which is not applicable to a company of arbitrators called by a man, not by the Gospel, to agree contending parties, which is a work of duty common to all the World, and none of the special works of the Church as distinguished from other Societies. Now that the word Church must be thus understood, and not as Mr. Stilling. would have it, I prove 2dly; It is constantly so used by the Writers of holy Scripture; neither can an instance be brought in all the New Testament where any ever put Ecclesia for a company met about any business, save that the Town-Clerk of Ephesus used it otherwise, Acts 19. 39. and Luke, speaking of him in his own dialect, useth it as he did, ver. 40. But when Christ here speaketh of a Church to which he sendeth his offended people by a standing Law for the redress of their grievances, we must certainly conceive that he will have them by the Church, to understand that which is ordinarily known by that name in the New Testament; for how should they know the meaning of an ambiguous word, but by the constant Use of it in the Scripture? 2. The demonstrative article added in the Greek putteth the matter beyond all question, foreign signifieth a particularly designed Church, which they to whom it is said, have pointed out unto them: not any Church, this or that, an individuum vagum, or such a Church as themselves may particularize or pitch upon: it is not [a] Church, but [the] Church, Now a company of Arbitrators chosen ad libitum by the grieved party, are not foreign [the] Church particularly, as individuum determinatum designed by Christ; they are at best but [a] Church, and should be here designed only confusè, or vage, huic aut illi ecclesiae, which the word cannot bear. Now if we take it for a Ruling-church, or whatever Church in Scripture-sense, it is here determined what Church we should bring the matter to, viz. that particular Church we live in (at least in prima instantia) and it is not left to our liberty to chuse what Church of many particulars we will complain unto. Or if we take the article here prefixed to denote the foreign of that Church here spoken of, and to determine the word to its famosius significatum; it hath the same strength of an argument: for, not a company of private Arbitrators, but Christians, or their Representatives met for the worship of God, or administration of the affairs of his House, are that Church.
Sect. 6. I come now to examine what Mr. Stilling. hath to say against this interpretation of the place, or for that which himself hath devised. P. 222. he undertaketh to prove that the Offence here spoken of is not any scandal or Sin against God, but a private injury. His arguments are, 1. from the parallel place, Luke 17. 3. If thy brother trespass againts thee, rebuke him; and if he repent, forgive him; this is private injury, because a private Brother may forgive it, which is not in his power were it a scandal to the whole Church, unless we make every private person to excommunicate and release one another. Answ. That Luke 17. 3, 4. is parallel to Matth. 18. 15, 16, 17. I do not question; and indeed all the Commentators that I have met with, make them relate to the same passage of Christs preaching: but this (if we may lay any weight on the judgment of men) doth make much against Mr. Still. for he understandeth Matth. 18. not of Scandals, but of the bare injury, so then must this place also, but the Text and context both do make it evident, as I conceive, that this place, is not meant of Private Injuries (but in so far as they are Scandals) but of scandalous sins: I say the context doth prove it; because our Lord is there speaking of Scandals: it is the very purpose that he is upon ver. 1, 2. The Text also proveth it, for the first remedy to be applyed to this evil, is Rebuke: which is known to be a more proper remedy for Scandal than private wrong: and then, the fruit of this remedy, Repentance, doth relate to Scandals rather than to private wrongs. Neither doth it follow that it is private injury, because a private person may forgive it; for we must understand it of private Scandal, not such as is publick, and a scandal to the whole Church, as Mr. Still. supposeth. Now when the Offender repenteth upon private Rebuke, the Rebuker may forgive him 3 ways: 1. By not charging him any more with guiltiness, but looking on him, as one whom the Lord hath pardoned. That this is called forgiveness in Scripture, is clear, 2 Cor. 2. 7, 10. where the whole Church is commanded thus to forgive the excommunicated man who had repented. 2. By exercising that Christian familiar love toward him, which we ought not to exercise towaad them who live in sin. 3. By forbearing to bring the matter to any more publick hearing, which, had not the party repented, had been his duty. Now this giveth not a power of Excommunicating and releasing to a private person; but only a power of the prudent Use of our own charity. His second Answer is the same, only built on another Scripture, Matth. 18. 20. Where Christ in answer to Peter's Question, bids us forgive our brother as oft as he repenteth. The answer is also the same; for we must forgive a scandalous Brother (in the way but now laid down) as oft as he repenteth; and not bring him to publick Rebuke, but in case of obstinacy. His 3d. argument is this, If this be matter of Scandal that is here spoken of; then might a matter of Scandal be brought before the Church when there is no way to decide it, there being but one privy to it, who is the Accuser, he affirmeth, and the Offender denyeth. Answ. 1. Doth not this same inconvenience follow if the matter be a private Injury? May there not in that case be no way for the Arbitrators to decide the matter, the Offender denying, and the injured party affirming, and that where himself is the party? The Objecter then is as much obliged to answer this argument as we are. But 2dly, This inconvenience is easily avoided thus: if the grieved person be the only witness of the fact, and the offender deny the fact, it ought not to come before the Church, neither is this injunction to be understood of such cases: but where either the fact is known to more than one (for even so it may be a private and no publick offence) or where the Offender doth not deny the fact; but denyeth that it is wrong: in that case, first two or three, then the whole Church must endeavour to convince him. It is a bad consequence; some works of darkness, for want of witness, cannot be decided by the Church; Ergo, We are not commanded to bring scandals before the Church. That which he addeth p. 223. That Christ here speaketh as to an ordinary case, and in allusion to what was then in Use among the Jews; which was to reprove one another, commanded Lev. 19. 17. and for neglect of which, Jerusalem was thought to be destroyed by R. Chamna. This I say, is nothing to the purpose; for I suppose these Reproofs, Lev. 19. 17. and which are mentioned by that Rabby, were not only for private Injuries, but mainly for sin against God: wherefore this consideration maketh not a little against the design for which it was brought. P. 224. He will not have the Church here spoken of to be the Christian Church; because, saith he, Christ is speaking to a present case, and layeth down a present Remedy. Now if he lay down Rules for governing his Church; this could not be, because there were yet no Ecclesiastical Courts for them to appeal to: if then the case had presently fallen out, they were left without a redress, having no Church to tell it unto. Ans. It cannot be proved that Christ here layeth down Rules for a case presently practicable, more than he doth when he impowereth his Apostles, and chargeth them concerning their work, Matth. 16. 19. John 20. 23. Mal. 28. 19. and yet will have them to delay a while before they should put all that power in act. Luke 24. 49. And indeed we have far better cause to think that he is telling his people what to do in the after and ordinary times of his Church, than what they should do in that present and extraordinary case, when the Church was not yet framed, and when they had himself personably to go to for direction. 2dly, However we maintain that this Rule, as it serveth for our times, so might it serve for that time in which it was spoken: for if the case had then fallen out, though there were not the ordinary Ecclesiastical Courts to go to, that now ought to be, yet there wanted not a visible Church-power residing in the person of Christ, and after in the Apostles, to whom did succeed the ordinary Judicatures: so that the offended party wanted never a Church to make his complaint unto. I do not say that [Tell the Church] doth directly signifie any other to which the complaint was to be made, but the ordinary guides of the Church; for our Lord accommodateth his terms he useth to the ordinary cases in which this Law was to take place; but by Analogie, it is applicable to any who in extraordinary cases act the part of the ordinary Guides of the Church.
Sect. 7. I agree to the argument of Mr. Gillespy, cited by the Author, that unless we understand the word Church as usually, it would be no easie matter to know what Christ here meaneth by the Church; for seeing this was to be a standing Law in all Ages, 'tis not imaginable that the Lord would have us otherwise understand the terms of it than they are ordinarily used in the Bible, which he intended should constantly be in his Peoples hands. Neither is that of any weight which our Author opposeth to this; that such as so argue would do well to consider, how those to whom Christ spake, should apprehend his meaning, if he spake in a sense they never heard of before. We consider that they may easily understand Christs words, because he had often before spoken to them of the Gospel-church that was to be set up, and even in this very term of a Church, as Matth. 16. 19. and frequently under the notion of the Kingdom of Heaven; which they might easily apprehend to be meant by the Church. Wherefore the Author did not well consider what he said, when he supposed this language to be unknown to the Disciples. Hence all that he saith of the way of understanding Scripture in the sence of the words then common, is not to the purpose; for, Christ had made this sense common among them. Neither must we understand the word as it was then commonly apprehend among the Jews, but as it was apprehended among Christs ordinary Hearers, who were in expectation of another Church, and another way of Government in it to be set up, than was then among the Jews. I find no more in the Author that is argumentative either against our opinion of this Text, or for his own. He concludeth p. 228. that this place, though it speaks not of Church-government, yet it may have some influence on it by way of Analogy, viz. in proving, 1. Gradual Appeals, 2. Church-censures, 3. The lawfulness of Excommunication. This he yieldeth at least, that something of Church-Government may be inferred from this place: then ex concessis, it is not so impertinent to this purpose as he would have made us believe in the beginning of this Chapter.
Sect. 8. But let us see if we can draw any more out of it than he will yield us. We have already proved it to be directly meant of Church-Government, and to give Rules for the right managing of it: now I assert, that it doth implicitly determine the form of Church-Government, viz. That it ought to be by Parity, not Episcopacy; which I thus make out: The first Authority before which the complaint of the grieved party is to be brought, is the Church, (and it is also the last:) but if the Church were governed by Bishops, this should not be, Ergo, The Church ought not to be governed by Bishops. The Major is clear; for after secret and private admonition (which are not authoritative) immediately succeedeth [Tell the Church:] sure this Church must be that Authority which we must go to prima instantia, and also that which must finally decide the matter; seeing Excommunication doth immediately so low upon Disobliging this Authority. The Minor I prove thus: in the Episcopal way, the complaint must be brought to the Bishop or to his Delegate or Delegates (which is all one as to the matter of Authority) and he must be the last that must determine, and on disobedience to him followeth Excommunication: but the Bishop is not the Church, Ergo, In the Episcopal way complaints cannot be made to the Church, nor doth the Church finally decide the matter. The Minor of this last Syllogism is evident; for neither the na…ure of the word, nor Scripture-Use will bear, that one Man shall be called the Church. If it be said that Episcopacy be so modelled, as the Bishop with the Presbyter may judg of the offence, and they may well be called the Church. Answ. In that case, either the Presbyters have a decisive Vote as well as the Bishop, or they be only his Advisers. In the first case the Bishop is only a Praeses: which is not that Episcopacy pleaded against, though we judg it inconvenient. In the 2d, the Bishop is the only Power, and therefore there is no such Church as here meant, for the Church here is a Church cloathed with Authority, whom the party ought to hear, i. e. obey, and for contumacy against which he is Excommunicated: but the Bishop and his counsel is not such a Church; for his counsel hath no Authority, and himself cannot make a Church; and therefore both taken together, make no Church having Authority.