Answer to Stillingfleets Irenicum, Chapter 6

Answer to Stillingfleets Irenicum · Chapter 6

p. 113CHAP. VI.

HERE Mr. Stilling. doth undertake to lay aside Apostolical practice from being a pattern for us in the matter of Church-Government; What success he hath in this attempt we now examine. His two main scopes in this Chapter, are, that it cannot be known what the practice of the Apostles was in this; and that if it were known, it is no binding example to us; which desperate assertions do, not a little, reflect upon the Scripture and tend to the casting loose the Government of the Church. The latter of them I have spoken to before, and purpose to examine what he saith for it. Concerning the former, I shall premise but this to our trying of his proofs, that it is very strange the Spirit of God in Scripture hath written so much of their practice, both Historically, and implied it in Doctrinal assertions and Precepts, if for all this we cannot know what it was; which if it do not accuse the Scripture-relation of things of great imperfection, I know nothing: for I am sure the Scripture doth purposely set down much of their practice, both in Preaching, administration of Sacraments, ordination of Officers, directing these Officers in their behaviour in the House of God, censures p. 114and other parts of Government: if yet we cannot know by Scripture what was their way in Ruling; the account given of these things must be very imperfect. I believe it would be imputed to any Writer of the History of a Church, if out of his History could not be gathered what was the Government of that Church: shall we then think that the Sacred Writers, who have undertaken to give us an account of the acts of the Apostles, are so deficient? especially many of the writings of the Apostles themselves being added by the same Spirit; out of which much may be gathered to this purpose. But let us hear how he makes out this his strange opinion. I insist not on what he writeth of the Apostles Commission; I confess the form of Government is not expressed in it: though we have ground to think, that when Christ chargeth them to teach his People to observe all he commanded them, Matth. 28. 20. that it was his Will that they should not leave so great a matter as is the form of Church-Government to mens Will; but that his Institution should be observed in this: especially seeing he spent 40 days with them before his Ascension, Acts 1. 3. speaking of the things pertaining to the Kingdom of God, that is the Gospel-Church: it is hard to think that among all his Instructions to them then, he told them nothing of his Will about the way of governing his Church. Neither do I take notice of his large Discourse about the Division of Provinces among the Apostles: nor of his too true observation, that looking on ancient practice through the Glass of our own customs, hath bred many mistakes: only I wonder at his bringing that for an instance, that Lay-Elders are proved from the name Presbyters: I believe there was never any that used such an Argument, seeing the name is common to them and Preaching-Elders. He will find stronger arguments than this for that Order of Church-Officers, if he please to read the Assertors of it.

Sect. 2. For clearing what was Apostolical Practice he layeth down this as a foundation, p. 239, &c. That the Apostles in the forming Churches did observe the custom p. 115of the Jewish Synagogue. About this Notion he spendeth a huge deal of pains, as if the strength of his cause lay here; but to what purpose it is, except to shew his reading and skill in Antiquity, I know not. Doth it follow, the Apostles imitated the Jews in the matter of Church-Government, Ergo, we are not obliged to imitate the Apostles? I should think that the contrary consequence might rather be inferred; but whatever be of that, this we are sure of, that whether there was any coincidency or similitude between the Apostolical and the Jewish way, or not; Whether the Apostles in what they did had an eye at the Jewish Example, or not: they were acted by an infallible Spirit, which did both guide them unerringly, and warrant them unquestionably to do what they did in the management of Church-Government, so that it is not the occasion of their taking such or such a way that we are to look to, but the morality of it, that should determine us to follow it, because we know it is the will of Christ. Wherefore I might pass without any more notice all that he writeth in many sheets of the modelling the Government of the Church by that of the Synagogue. Yet for further clearing the matter, I shall lay down a few Considerations.

Sect. 3. First, I take notice how inconsistent this Author is with himself in this Point; for p. 322. he asserteth, That the Apostles did not observe (in probability) one fixed course of setling the Government of Churches, but setled it according to the several circumstances of places and persons which they had to deal with. I hope he will not deny, but the Jewish way of Government was one and the same every where: How then did the Apostles imitate that, if they were so various in their setling of Government? sure if they did not stick to one form, they did not stick to the Jewish form. But I perceive he would fain say any thing that might cast Church-Government at an uncertainty; however the ways he taketh to this end, do clash one with another. 2. All this pains he taketh, tendeth either to prove nothing, or to prove that which p. 116himself will not own: for suppose that he had evinced that the Apostles did imitate the Jews in their Church-administrations: if any thing follow, it must be this, that these things which were done by the Apostles on such an account are not now binding, but are indifferent and determinable by men: and that as the Apostles had their liberty in imitating the Jews, or not, so we have our liberty in imitating the Apostles, or not, in them. Now this I am sure he dare not own in most of these things which he maketh to have been taken up from the Jewish customs: for he speaketh, p. 240. of Christs taking many Rites of the Lords Supper from the postcoenium among the Jews, and the Use of Baptism from the Baptisms used in initiating Proselytes, and Excommunication from their putting out of the Synagogue; and afterward he maketh building of Churches, to be taken from the Synagogues: publick reading of the Scripture, and Pastors from the Archisynagogi: Ordination from that used among the Jews: Will then Mr. Stilling. say that all these are now indifferent. That Baptism, Excommunication, Pastors, nay Ordination are no Institutions of Christ; and that as the Apostles took them from the Jews ad placitum; so we may take them from the Apostles, or leave them, as we list. Sure he will not say it: and if he saith not this, he saith nothing, but magno conatu nihil agit: parturiunt montes: nascetur ridiculus mus. 3. It is needful to distinguish the things that the Apostles did by imitation take from the Jews, by confounding of which Mr. Stilling. hath mired himself and his Reader too. There are 1. somethings that are the dictates of Nature and Reason: as that publick assembling be ordinarily in some one convenient place: that in a Society there be Rulers and Ruled: that where many Rule they meet together for that end: that in their meeting one preside, to avoid confusion, &c. 2. There are other things which be the commandments of God concerning his moral Worship; as that Prayers, Praises, pulick reading of his Word, with opening of it, that his people may know his Will, be performed in the p. 117solemn meetings of his people. 3. God's ceremonial Worship, which consisteth in the observance of Rights sacred, or peculiar to Religion, without which all that Worship of God might well be performed, which is, and hath been of moral and perpetual Obligation. 4. Such things as receive their usefulness and fitness from custom: as Words, Habits, Gestures, &c. Now for the first two sorts, though there was co-inciding in them, between the Jewish and Apostolical way (and indeed it could not be otherwise, Nature and what is of moral Obligation being the same unto all) yet that the Apostles were determined in these by the Jewish Example, we deny. For the 3d, It is clear, that the Apostles used no such things with the Jewish Church, except a few for a time to avoid Scandal, Acts 15. 28. 29. Yea, they are declared unlawful to be used, Gal. 4. 9, 10. and 5. 1, 2. Col. 2. 16, 17. which I am elswhere to shew more at length. The 4th sort of things we hold to be in themselves indifferent, and determinable by the laudable custom of every place. Neither do we deny the Apostles to have in many of these imitated the Jewish Church; and no wonder, because they lived among them. Now Church-Government having in it some things of all these sorts, it is clear from what hath been said, how far we confess the Apostles to have followed the Jews in it; and how far not. That wherein we are likest to controvert with Mr. Still. is, about things of the third sort, which I must yet distinguish: they were either such as the Lord had commanded to the Jews, or such as they without his command did take up. The former, he doth not alledg that the Apostles followed the Jews in. The latter he asserteth, and we deny it; and shall anon hear what he bringeth for his Assertion. But for further clearing this and the whole matter, I lay down a fourth consideration, viz. to make it out, that the Apostles did imitate the Jews, there are two things required. 1. To shew the co-incidency of their practice. 2. To shew that this co-incidency did proceed from a design of conformity, viz. that the Apostles were determined in such things by the p. 118Jewish Example: for the former without the other is no imitation, because in imitation, the former practice must have some influence on that which followeth; such as the exemplary cause hath on the exemplatum. Now if the Apostles did (in some of these) the same things with the Jewish Church, only accidentally, or upon other motives; and did not (as Mr. Stilling. phraseth it) copy out the Jewish way of Government, 'tis no imitating of them.

Sect. 4. From what hath been said, it will be easie to maintain against Mr. Stilling. large Discourse, that the Apostles did not in the Government of the Church imitate the Jewish Synagogue as their Pattern; I shall touch such things in his Discourse as seem to prove it. And 1. I take notice of that which was occasionally touched before, p. 240, viz. That Christ delighted to take up the received practices among the Jews, as the Postcoenium he turned to the Lords Supper, Baptism of Proselytes, imitated to Christian Baptism, casting out of the Synagogue to Excommunication. And this he saith he did with Rites, not which were originally founded on Moses's Law; but which were brought in by a confederate Discipline among themselves. This, saith he, hath been abundantly manifested by many learned men; of which he cited some in his Margin. I confess, many learned Men, especially such as have spent their pains in Critical Learning, have done but bad service to Christ and his institutions, while to serve their Phoenomena, and make their critical Conjectures the more plausible, they have made Mens devices like Maezentius his bed to curtail or stretch out Christs Institutions by them at their pleasure. But the Authority of such Men, though never so learned, shall not perswade me (what their Reasons may do I say not, till I hear and consider them) to think that Christ had such delight in Mens inventions in the Worship of God, as to make them the Pattern of his Gospel-institutions; and that rather than the Ceremonies, which of old were of divine Authority: shall we think that he who condemneth Mens Doctrines in Gods Worship, as vain, Mal. 15. 9. and especially in that Chapter, condemneth a Ceremony p. 119brought in by confederate Discipline, which in it self was as harmless as any of these mentioned, viz. often Washing: shall we think, I say, that he had such pleasure in these things? sure he cannot be so unlike himself. Neither I am sure can the Assertors of this Paradox, shew any such difference between that Ceremony and these here instanced, as that Christ should hate the one, and delight in the other. For that often alledged, that the Pharisees placed much Religion in their often Washings (besides that the thing simply, not their opinion, is condemned in the place cited) it cannot be made out, that they placed more Religion in this, than they did in their Postcoenium, washing of Proselytes, &c. For further Answer to this Assertion of our Authors, I add, that supposing Christ did make his Institutions to consist of some material acts, like to these of the Jewish uncommanded observations (for this is the furthest, that the Authors consideration can pretend to prove) it doth not follow that he approved of these inventions: neither that we may mould the affairs of the Church by our Reason and skill without Scripture; and that for these Reasons: 1. From Christs Wisdom. 2. From his Authority which did warrant him to do such things, and doth not make it lawful for the Church now to do them. 1. I say, from his Wisdom: he is an able and competent Judg of what is suted to Gospel-worship, and what not: and therefore of these unwarranted Observations in Use among the Jews, he could chuse what was fittest for his designs (the things being indifferent in themselves) and appoint them in his Church: we cannot so well judg of the fitness of a thing to his design in the Gospel-model of affairs; and therefore must not take such liberty in doing what Man hath done without a special institution of Christ. Moreover, he knew well how in the depth of his Wisdom to make such a choice in his institutions serve unto two great ends, viz. the gaining of the Jews, by making as little diffrrence between the old way (to which they were wedded) and the new Gospel-way, as could be: and the adorning of his Gospel-service with most fit and excellent p. 120Ceremonies: this cannot be pretended for devices of Men in Gods Worship, whether found out by themselves, or wherein they imitate others. 2. For his Authority, however these Observations being uncommanded were on that account unlawful to the Jews; yet the things materially considered being indifferent, and Christ having absolute Authority to institute particulars in his Church, he might well chuse these, and seal them with his Authority, and so make them both lawful and duty to us: this no Man can do; they must have his Command for Institution; and not make them by their own authority. Wherefore Christ taking the Jewish Customs for Patterns to his Institutions (if he did so) maketh nothing for Men's setting up their institutions in the Church; or for the indifferency of things belonging peculiarly to the Church.

Sect. 5. That which he saith ibid: maketh little to his purpose, viz. That even when God did determine the positives of Worship, he left the Morals to the wisdom and discretion of his People: which he instanceth in building and ruling Synagogues. Ans. this is true of such things as are of common concernment to Religion and other Actions; we also allow such parts of Church-Government to be managed by Christian Prudence: his instance proveth no more; for we permit also the building of Churches to prudence. But the question is about things proper to the Church as it is a Religious Society: these things we deny to have been left to prudence among the Jews, or to be now so left among Christians. I cannot yield to what he seemeth to aim at, when he saith, that though the reason of erecting Synagogues was builded on a command, viz. Of having holy Convocations, yet they were not built for a long time after they came to the Land: I cannot think that the building of Synagogues was indifferent though the place and manner was: for the same command that requireth holy Convocations, requireth that there be a place fit for them. If they were at first long of building, it was either from some impediment, or from inexcusable negligence. Much less do I agree to what followeth, viz. Although p. 121Moses requireth the duty of Assembling, yet he prescribes no Orders for the place of meeting, nor for the manner of spending these dayes in Gods service, nor for the Persons who were to superintend the publick work. Ans. the first of these, as to the Circumstances of it, is left to Prudence, it being meerly a natural Circumstance of Worship, the second for substance is in the law, viz. What duties they should spend the day with, viz. Sacrificing in the Temple, reading the Law, and Teaching the People in other places: the natural Circumstances of this are also left to prudence. The third is falsly asserted: are not the Levites appointed to superintend that work when they are made the Publick Teachers of the People? Wherefore all this maketh nothing for his design, viz. That the Jewish Church-Government was left to Prudence, and that the Christian should be so. Their reading of the Law we approve; but deny it to have been voluntary but commanded; their curious dividing of it, and leaving out some of it we disprove, as the fruit of the superstitions of the latter ages of that Church: and indeed it may be compared with the frame of our Service-Book, though it was not so bad by far. I insist not on his guesses about the Government of Synagogues, which he taketh much pains to make appear to be like the Government in the Apostolick Church, that he might make us believe, that this was taken from that. I only observe that the product of all his pains is not operae pretium: both because of the uncertainty of the matter of Fact, that there were such Officers so employed in the Synagogues: as also the far off resemblances that are between them and Officers in the Christian Church; as any attentive Reader may observe. And so I pass to p. 253. where he sheweth how far the Apostles in forming Christian Churches did follow the Jewish Pattern.

Sect. 6. I smile indeed to consider how Mr. Still. magnifies this his notion, and judgeth this birth of his own Brain, as that which with his Improvement (such as it hath yet received from no other) will be more conducible than any he knoweth to the happy end of composing our p. 122differences about Church-Government. I hope I have said as much of this notion. p. 186. &c. as will make it to be of less esteem with unbyassed men. I profess I cannot yet understand, for all that I have meet with in this Author about it, how this Notion should have any such effect, for the Question is not what pattern the Apostles followed, so much, as whether what they did was the Institution of Christ, and whether we ought to follow them as our pattern: and to the determining of this I see very little or no Use of this notion which he so much crieth up. But to make it get entertainment he taketh much pains. First, he promiseth some general considerations to make it probable: and sheweth next how the Apostles did imitate the Synagogue in 4 particulars. Let us hear what probability it getteth from his Considerations. The 1 is, That Christ and his Disciples, and Christians afterward went under the name of Jews; that they kept Communion with the Jews, and observed their Customes, not only which were commanded of God, but which they had taken up themselves, if they were not contrary to Gods commands. Here are 3 or 4 considerations jumbled together, some of which are false, others true, but prove not the Point. I shall answer them more distinctly than he hath set them down. And first for the name, it is no wonder they were called Jews, for they were so by nation: if at any time they owned themselves as of the Jewish Religion, that proveth nothing; for this they might do, because the Jewish Religion, as commanded of God, was the same in Substance with the Christian, see Act. 26. 22. It doth not from this follow that there were the same Administrations in the Jewish and Christian-Church. And if in after-times the Jews and Christians were both reckoned as one body by the Heathens (for which he bringeth some proof p. 255. and 256.) yet it doth not follow, which he there inferreth, viz. That they observed the same Rites and Customes▪ for this mistake of the Heathens did proceed partly from the agreement that was between Jews and Christians, as to most great points of Religion: partly from the Agreement of their Rites in this, that both were very unlike p. 123the Heathen Rites. Neither did the Heathens understand the difference between Jews and Christians, though wise men among them knew that there was a difference: this may be gathered from Act. 18. 15. and Act. 25. 19, 20. It doth not follow from this, that the Rites were the same. 2. For their keeping communion with the Jews, this doth far less prove the point: and that because, 1. the time when they kept Communion with the Jews was when the Jewish Church was yet standing, and the Christian not framed nor erected: our Author cannot prove that they kept Communion with them after the Christian Churches were set up: for their going to the Temple and the Synagogues to Pre…ch, proveth nothing. For that they did because the People were there met, not because they would join in their Service. 2. Because it was fit for that time to yield to the Jews so far as was possible, that they might be gained to the Gospel: hence they observed even some of the legal Ceremonies, they being then indifferent: but it followeth not that they did settle the ordinance and abiding practices of the Church by the Pattern of the Synagogue. Paul's being freely admitted into the Synagogue to Preach, proveth no more than we have granted: his condescending to them did procure this, not his framing Gospel-Churches according to their mould, much less is this his design proved by the mistake of the believing Jews about the conversion of the Gentiles, and their being zealous for observing the Law of Moses; yea and grant that they were zealous for the uncommanded Customes of their Father, a… he alledgeth. For this proceeded from their being bred up in these things, and their Ignorance of the mind of God in abolishing them, and in calling of the Gentiles: and the Apostle's yielding to the Jews as far as might be for a time, was because he had not yet shewed the difference between the Gospel and Jewish Church, because they could not then bear it: but with what shaddow of consequence doth it follow from this that the Apostles did afterwards frame the Christian Church after the model of the Jewish? For the 3d. it is a bold and most false assertion, p. 124that Christ and his Disciples conformed to the uncommanded Customes of the Jews: yea they are accused for Non-conformity in this point Matth. 15. 2. And Christ defendeth them in it, and meerly on this Account, that these customs were the traditions of men, and humane doctrines: which is true of all uncommanded Customes in Religion. But how proveth he this Assertion? he bringeth Instances; Christ observed the Feast of dedication: this is Impudently said; he walked in Solomons Porch Jo. 10. 22, 23. that he might have occasion to teach the People: but did he offer a Sacrifice, or observe any other rite or Custome of the Feast? we read no such thing, going to their Synagogues and teaching there was no uncommanded Custome. Washing the Disciples Feet a custom used by the Jews before the passover (saith Mr. Still. but others say it was done between the 2 courses of the passover) this Christ did, and giveth a Mystical reason for it. Jo. 13. 5. but that he did it in Conformity to the Jewish Custome (if any such there was) let it be proved, appointing Baptism I hope hath a better Foundation than the Jewish Custome, but of this before; thus what he saith in prosecuting his First consideration, is answered: neither is it as yet probable that the Apostles imitated the Jewes in framing the Gospel-Church.

Sect. 7. His 2d consideration p. 257. is that the Apostles framed Christian Churches out of Jewish Synagogues: what solid Proof for this he bringeth let us hear. We see saith he, how fearful the Apostles were to offend the Jews, and how ready to condescend to them in any thing that might be; and if Paul would yield to them in circumcising Tim. (a thing which might seem to cross the design of the Gospel) would he scruple to retain the old Model the Synagogue, when there was nothing in it repugnant to the doctrine of the Gospel? Answ. The Apostles at first did yield very far to the Jews, because they could not at the beginning digest the taking down of the old frame of Worship, and setting up a new; hence they did conform to the Jews, for that time, as much as might be in their transient and occasional practices: but this reason did no way p. 125oblige them to frame their constitutions and practices of the Church that were to abide afterward, by the Jewish Patern, because then the Gospel was fully promulgated, and the Will of Christ known to the new Gospel-Church, differing from the old; and in this case we are rather to think that the Apostles did not conform to the Jewish way in things not necessary; because as at first, their work was to bring them to Christ, and so they yielded to them as much as might be; so afterwards now their work was tobring them from Moses, and to this end it was fit to bring them off all those customes and waies which might keep that their Idol yet in their minds, as sure the Jewish customes might do; Here is more then a shew of reason (which our Author requireth) why the Apostle should slight the constitution of the Jewish Synagogues; and besides, it is reason enough why they should do this, if it be not proved that they did otherwise, seeing they were guided by an infallible Spirit, not led by mens Customes in their Actions. I find no further proof of this consideration, but that they did not only gather Churches out of Synagogues, but that in probability whole Synagogues in some places were converted. What ground there is for this probability I know not; we read nothing of it, as we read of whole Houses converted: neither see I any reason to think that the Apostles did respect Synagogues in their reforming Churches: they made the Churches of them who had before been in the Synagogues; and that I believe they did according to the Peoples best conveniency for partaking of ordinances together: but that their Synagogues were their Pattern I see not. Another argument from the Jewish and Gentiles Coetus, he would fain be helped by; but finding it weak, disputeth against it: wherefore we lay it aside, and come to his 3d consideration p. 260. viz. the Synagogue-Model was most agreable to the State of the Churches in Apostolick times; because it was so ordered, as that it needed not depend on the Secular Power for attaining the end of Government. Answer. Wherein the Synagogue-Model was, in the nature of the thing fitted to the State of the Gospel, we do not say that the Apostles would reject such a good thing because used p. 126by the Synagogue; only we deny that they used it because the Synagogue used it: so this proveth nothing. Further it proveth only co-incidency between the Church and Synogogue-Government in this general that both were such as might consist without Secular power: but divers particular forms may be of this nature; so that there is no need from this consideration that the Church and the Synagogues be governed by the same Model.

Sect. 8. We see how probable he hath made this his assertion: he cometh p. 261. to shew what particular practices of the Synagogue, the Apostles did take up and follow; and first he speaketh of their publick service in the Church: where all that he can attain to is this, that there was in the Church, as there had been in the Synagogue, solemn Prayers, Praises, reading of Scripture, and t…aching of the People out of it: all which are parts of Moral worship; and would have been in the Church though there had never been a Synagogue to take example by; he is forced to acknowledge a considerable difference, viz. omitting the reading the Sections of the Law as was done in the Synagogue, and celebrating the Lords Supper, which was not in it: which one consideration destroyeth all that he is at so much pains to establish: for if Christ and his Apostles had made the Synagogue their pattern, they might easily have conformed to them in reading the Sections of the Law and taking the Lords Supper, from some of their customes as well as they did Baptism, as this Author alledgeth. Next he cometh p. 264. to ordination: about which he maketh a great deal of do, but to no purpose: for Ordination i. e. a Solemn setting of men apart for the Office of the Ministry, doth naturally follow as necessary to Order; supposing that some should be in that Office and the work be not common to all, which I believe should have been in the Church whatever had been done in the Synagogue; as for the Rite of it; laying on of hands, whether it was used in the Synagogue or not is not worth our enquiry, for it will not thence follow that the Apostles took it from the confederate discipline of the Synagogue (i. e. from their p. 127men-devised Customes) as our Author confidently asserteth: but all that he discourseth proveth not this, but only, if it prove any thing, that it was used in the Synagogue. I assert with more warrant that it was taken up both by the Synagogue and by the Apostles from the ancient custome of blessing, or dedicating any thing to God by this Ceremony: of this Judgment is Calv. Inst. lib. cap. 4. Sect. hunc autem ritum fluxisse arbitror ab Hebraeorum more, qui quod benedictum aut consecratum volebant, manuum impositione deo quasi repraesentabant: sic Jacob benedicens Ephraim & Manasse, eorum capitibus manus imposuit: quod sequutus est dominus noster, cum super infantes precationem faceret: eodem ut arbitror significatu Judaei ex legis praescripto suis sacrificiis manus imponebant: quare apostoli per manuum impositionem eum se deo offerre significabant quem initiabant in ministerium: quanquam usui sit etiam super eos, quibus visibilis spiritus gratias conferebant. We see then it was not the practice in Synagogue-Ordination only: but in many things else, and it is most probable that this Rite so constantly used in all Ages of the Church, in all cases of blessing or consecration hath something more in it then humane Institution in the Synagogue: the constant use of it by men infallibly guided, as Abraham, the Apostles, Christ himself; the commanding of it in the like case of consecration under the Law cannot but give it a stamp of divine Authority. Yea we find the Levites thus ordained Num. 8. 10. wherefore all this his pains doth not prove that Gospel-Ordinance was taken up from the humane custome of the Synagogue. A few things in this his discourse. I shall further shortly take notice of. p. 264, 265. he will have Gospel-Ministers not to succeeed (no not by Analogie) to the Priests and Levites, but rather to the Officers in the Synagogues: for the Priests were not admitted by Solemn Ordination; but judged of their fitness, as to birth and body by the same ordination: but the Rulers of the Synagogues were admitted by Ordination: and if any of the Priests came to that Office, they as well as others had their peculiar designation and appointment to it. Here I reply. 1. I believe that Gospel-Ministers did not properly succeed p. 128to either of these; but stand upon another foundation, viz. Christs Institution: and so it is needless to enquire which of them they should succeed to. I yield also, that the name of Priests under the Gospel hath brought in the thing it self, and even the Mass: which ought not to be. 2. What can he design by this Discourse? Would he make the Office of the Ministry stand on no other bottom but imitation of the Synagogues Rulers; and these Rulers to be brought in by a confederate Discipline, i. e. to be a humane invention? If he say not this, he saith nothing to the purpose; but I hope he will not say it. 3. It is false, that the Priests were not solemnly set apart for their Office; though they had it by birth, yet they behoved to be solemnly initiated to it; and I am sure Mr. Still. would not have said, that they were no otherwise set apart but by the judgment of the Sanhedrim, of their birth and body; if he had not in this so consulted Antiquity, as that he forgot to look into the Bible. I do not deny but there was such a Judgment to pass on them, (neither ought Ministers be now admitted without tryal) yea the Scripture (which is surer than the Talmud) telleth us so much. Ezr. 2. 62, 63. Yet we find also their solemn setting apart to the Office described, Exod. 28. 41. and 29. 1. Lev. 8. 2, &c. And spoken of, 2 Chron. 26. 18. Yea the very Idol-Priests would not want this solemn setting apart, 2 Chron. 13, 9. Jud. 17. 5, 12. Yea, our Authors opinion everteth it self; for to what purpose was a publick judging of them before their entry on the exercise of their Office, if there was no solemn admission of them to it; sure a solemn declaring them such as God had appointed his Priests to be (if there had been no more, they being kept from exercising the Office till this was done) was a solemn admission. 4. I would know who these others were who were Rulers of the Synagogue, and so Teachers of the people; at least Superintenders over Gods publick Worship (as he elswhere phraseth it) beside the Priests? if they were only Levites, or others also, as he seemeth to imply: and if any other but Priests and Levites were admitted to that Office, I would know quo warranto: sure p. 129the Scripture speaketh of these as old Testament-Teachers, Neh. 8. 9. 2 Chron. 17. 8, 9. and of none else, but immediately inspired Prophets. But I see Mr. Stilling. looketh more to Rabinical stories in these matters, than to the Bible: and to the customs of the Synagogue in the days of the Apostacy than to the commands of God, as he gave them, though they be rare who are made mad by too much Learning; yet there are whom too much reading (without holding to the Scripture as the Rule) maketh to dote. I need not insist on what he writeth, p. 268, &c. of the Rite of laying on of Hands; enough hath been said, to shew that it proveth not what he intendeth: nor on the persons ordaining in the Synagogue and in the Church; of which he, pa. 272, &c. for in both he confesseth abomination to have been done in common by those in Power; and afterward without divine Warrant restrained to one: if Christ hath given power to all Presbyters to do it; we must have some warrant to restrain this Power ere we dare do it; but of this enough before.

Sect. 9. In his further prosecuting the correspondence of the Apostolick Church with the Synagogue: he speaketh p. 285. of the Order setled by the Apostles in the Churches planted by them, for ruling of them: and first he maketh a work about the name foreign, which is the same with foreign used in the Synagogue; but from his own Discourse it's clear how little weight is to be laid on this consideration, as to what he intendeth: seeing that name was ever used to denote Power and Dignity, whether in Church or State, and so doth no more belong to the Synagogue than other things. I take notice of what he saith in the end of p. 286. If his design is not to dispute the Arguments of of either party, (viz. those who conceive the Apostles setled the Government of the Church in absolute purity, or else by Superiority and subordination among the setled Officers of the Church) but to lay down these principles, which may equally concern both, in order to accommodation. But I humbly conceive, it was very incumbent upon him to answer the arguments of both parties: p. 130and they must be answered to us before we be obliged to receive his Doctrine (of which anon) that we cannot know what form the Apostles setled, and that they setled not any one form. For as long as arguments brought by either of the controverting parties do stand untaken away; to prove that the Apostles setled this or that form: the Judgment can never acquiesce in his opinion, that they setled none; or that we cannot know what they setled. This is a strange way of disputing, especially when the design is to satisfie the Conscience in order to peace, and yielding up its opinion: to lay down such Principles to this end, with strong arguments standing against them, untouched or answered. 'Tis like Mr. Stilling. thinketh that when he hath furnished Men with some probabilities, that may encourage them to comply with what Government shall be set up in the Church; their interest and maintenance should resist the strength of all arguments against it: for he will furnish them with no help in this; but they must have very pliable Consciences, if Will be furnished to an opinion so maintained. His Principles in order to accommodation, or all that he will say of the Apostles Government, he draweth into 3 Propositions, p. 287. which in sum are these: That we cannot know what was the Apostles practice: that it was not always the same: that whatever it was, we are not obliged to observe it. Let us hear how he maketh these out.

Sect. 10. His first Proposition he setteth down thus: That we cannot arrive to such an absolute certainty what course the Apostles took in governing Churches, as to infer from thence the only divine Right of that one form which the several parties imagine come nearest to it. This Proposition is not so ingenuously nor clearly set down as need were; wherefore I shall a little remove the mist cast on the Truth by his words, which may make simple Souls mistake it. And 1. There is some ambiguity in [absolute certainty] if he mean so much certainty as amounteth to Plerophory, and doth dispell all degrees of darkness and doubting, this we assert, not that every one may attain (such is the darkness p. 131of Mens minds (neither is it needful to this that we look upon what the Apostles did, as being juris divini. If we mean, so much certainty as doth incline the mind to the one part, and not leave it in suspence: we assert, that this may be attained in reference to what is in Question. 2. The matter in debate, is very obscurely, if not fraudulently expressed by these words [what course the Apostles took in governing Churches] the Question is not, whether we can know every thing that they did in this, (for many particulars are comprehended in this general expression) but whether we can know if the setled Presbyters acting in Parity, or Bishops acting with authority over Presbyters, as the ordinary Officers of the Church▪ 3. It is not fair dealing to imply (as this Proposition doth) that we infer the only divine Right of one form from bare Apostolical practice: he knows that we walk upon other grounds, viz. we take Christs command of imitating the Apostles: the Parity between our case and theirs, which may make the morality of our practice to be the same with theirs. 4. It is not the one form which several parties imagine to come nearest to Apostolical practice: but that which is proved to be really the same with it, we plead for: it's not mans imaginations, but Scriptural grounds which we establish that correspondency upon, we are asserting between Apostolical practice, and what we would have to be now in the Church. The antithesis then which we maintain against this his Proposition, is this, That they who search the Scripture may come to be satisfied on good grounds, whether the Apostles in planting Churches did setle Presbyters acting in Parity, or Bishops ruling over Presbyters as their ordinary Officers: so as they may (considering the duty laid on us to follow them, and the parity of our case with theirs) infer the divine Right of that one Form (of these two) which was used by the Apostles. For proof of this our antithesis I refer to the consideration laid down, p. 184, 185. about the perfection of Scripture-history, and its design to instruct us in this point: which doth so far prevail with me, that I look upon the Authors Proposition as such a reflexion on p. 132Scripture, that any but a Papist may be ashamed of. To this I add, that the arguments brought for Presbyterial Government by the Assertors of it, do evidently destroy the Authors Proposition, and do establish our Antithesis: which seeing he doth not intend nor endeavour to answer, we need not insist upon. A further confirmation of our Antithesis, shall be to take off the arguments that he hath brought for his Proposition, which I now come to.

Sect. 11. His first argument is, p. 287. from the equivalency of the names and doubtfulness of their signification, from which the form of Government used in the new Testament, should be determined. He saith, That it is hotly pleaded on both sides, that the form of Government must be derived from the importance of the names [Bishop and Presbyter] and that there can be no way to come to a determination what the certain sense of these names is in Scripture. He maketh out the uncertainty, by laying down four opinions about the signification of these names: and from this variety of interpretation, inferreth that we cannot know what sense they are to be taken in. Ans. 1. when he saith that it is pleaded on both sides, that the form of Government must be derived from the names of Bishop and Presbyter; this is a misrepresentation; for 1. There be arguments from which it might well be derived, though these names should never be mentioned. 2. When we dispute from these Names, it is not from the bare force of the word; but from this, that the Scripture doth often apply these names to the same thing, never to divers Officers in the Church: and therefore, there is no ground for asserting the difference of Bishop and Presbyter. This is a surer argument, than what can be drawn from the importance of Names. Answ. 2. It is most false and injurious to the Spirit of God speaking in his word, to say, that there can be no way to determine what is the certain sense of these names in Scripture. We must then say, that the Spirit of God speaketh that which cannot be understood, if he use names and words to express some thing to us, and it is impossible to know what is meant by them. When we hear of Bishops p. 133and Presbyters in any place of Scripture; either we must say, that these words signifie nothing, or that they mean somewhat, but no man can know what it is, or that we may come to know what is meant by them. The former two are foul reflexions on the Author of holy Scripture: yea, it were a reflexion on a Man to speak or write (in a Book designed for instruction) that which either hath no meaning, or such as cannot be known. The 3d, contradicteth our Authors Assertion. His proof of the uncertainty of the signification of these Names, we have met with before in the like case: it is a most unhappy and inconsequential reason; Men have divers ways understood these words of the Holy Ghost, Ergo, they cannot be understood at all. They must have a meaning, and it is our duty to search it out, however Men differ about it. There are better Reasons brought by Presbyterians, to prove that these two Names signifie the same thing; which was incumbent on this Author to answer, and not to shift the matter with saying, that other Men think otherwise. I shall give but this instance, or hint, which may satisfie any what is the meaning of these words in Scripture. Tit. 2. The Apostle leaveth in Crete Titus to ordain Elders or Presbyters, verse 5. and telleth him how they must be qualified, verse 6 and giveth this reason, why they must have such qualifications, verse 7. for a Bishop must be blameless: If a Bishop were another thing than a Presbyter, to what purpose were this reason here brought? Ergo, they are one and the same thing. And if any affirm, that these words signifie different things in any place of Scripture, let him prove it, and we shall yield the cause. I might also shew, that the same Office and work is every where in Scripture laid on both these; and that never any thing is given to the one, but what is given to the other: but this hath been done, and other arguments managed fully by our Writers against Episcopacy; neither hath Mr. Stilling. had the confidence to answer them, though destroying this his Assertion, and therefore I shall supersede this labour. For the name of [Angels of the Churches] the argument brought from it is not ours, but our opposites.

p. 134Sect. 12. His 2d. Argument for the uncertainty of Apostolical practice, p. 290. is, That the places of Scripture most in controversie about the form of Government, may be without any incongruity understood of either of the different Forms, which he maketh out by going through the several places. The first is, Acts 11. 30. where it is said, That the relief for the Brethren of Judea was sent to the Elders. There is nothing here, saith he, to shew whether there were the local Elders of Jerusalem, or the Bishops of the several Churches of Judea. Answ. I wonder why he should have brought this as the first, or as one of these few Scriptures that he undertaketh to answer, (for, the most part of the most pungent Scriptures against his design, he doth not so much as mention) for, I think, it is very little insisted on by either party: nor can I remember that I have met with it; as brought to prove either Parity or imparity. Yet I do not doubt but at least some probability may be hence brought, that the Apostolick Churches were governed by the Parity of Elders; for which I lay down briefly these grounds, First, The Elders here spoken of, are the Governors of the Church; this he doth not deny. 2dly, They were the Governors of the Church of Jerusalem. This he saith, is not sure; for they might be the Bishops of the Churches of Judea. But against this I argue; 1. It is not enough to say, they might be; but what ground is there to think that they were the Bishops of Judea, we bring probable grounds for what we assert; but what can be said for the contrary? It is a bold way of expounding Scripture, to say such a sense it may have, when there is no ground to think that it hath such a sense; but some ground to the contrary. 2. However, the Relief ought to be sent to all the Churches of Judea, yet it is delivered at Jerusalem to be sent abroad: for it is delivered to these Elders by Barnabas and Paul; whom it is not like they sent through the several Churches of Judea: 'tis spoken of as one single act of theirs, delivering the others to a company of Elders met together. Now it is not imaginable, that all the Bishops of Judea were met together on this occasion: for p. 135what needed such a Convention for receiving Alms? Yea, we have no ground to think that it was so natural to them before-hand, as that they could meet about it. Neither hath that conceit of some, any probability; that these Bishops did reside at Jerusalem: such Men did not begin so soon to slight their particular Charge, but of this after; These Elders then were the Elders of Jerusalem. 3. We find a company of Elders ordinarily at Jerusalem, not only Acts 15. 6. Which might be upon the solemn occasion of the Council; but Act. 21. 18. That these were the Elders of Judea, come up with their flocks to keep the Feast of Pentecost (as Mr. Still. guesseth) is a most irrational conceit: for though many of the Jews were zealous of the Law; shall we think that the Apostles had set Teachers over them, who were no better instructed in the Gospel than so? And besides, these believing Jews, ver. 20. who are said to be zealous of the Law, can neither be proved to have been then present at Jerusalem; for they might hear of Paul's condescendency to their Customs, though they were not there: neither that they were those of the Country of Judea; they might be of Jerusalem it self: but I incline rather to the first. Now we find not any other company of all the Elders of Judea met in one place: these were then the Elders of Jerusalem. 4. It is then observed, both by the ordinary gloss, and by Lyra in loc. That this famine was mainly like to be in Jerusalem: the Believers there being spoiled of their movable goods in the persecution about Stephen; and therefore this Relief was chiefly to them: Ergo, they are the Elders of Jerusalem, which here received it. Now from these grounds it easily followeth what we intend, viz. If there was a company of Elders who were Rulers of the Church at Jerusalem: then this Church (of the rest there is the same reason) was not governed by a Bishop, but by Presbyters acting in Parity. It is strange, if the Elders of the Church should be spoken of, and no notice taken of My Lord Bishop (if there were any such person) in such a matter.

Sect. 13. The 2d place is Act. 14. 23, when they had ordained them Elders in every Church, to which he joineth p. 136the 3d, Tit. 1. 5. that thou shouldest ordain Elders in every City. Of which places he saith that foreign and foreign signifie no more but Ecclesiatim and oppidatim; so that the places may well be understood of ordaining one Elder in every Church and City, or of more, but doth not determine whether one or more were ordained in them. But granting all that he alledgeth, a strong Argument for our purpose may be brought from these places, thus: there was at least in every Church one Elder, in the Apostles times, and such an Elder as was also a Bishop and had governing Power over the Church, as appeareth by comparing vers. 7. of Tit. 2. with this vers 5. But there could not be in every Church a Diocesan Bishop ruling over Presbyters: for one of these are over many Churches, Ergo. The Church was then governed by the Elders of the several Churches acting in Parity: for if every Church had its Elder, or Elders, and these all were Rulers, then the Rule was not in the hand of one Superiour over many Churches. Nothing can be questioned in this Argument, except it be said that every Church here is not every congregational but Diocesan Church. But this can in no wise be, for there was a necessity of an Elder or Elders in every Congregational Church for the Peoples Instruction: if these then did rule, the Church was ruled by the Elders of Congregational Churches. The next place is Act▪ 20. 17. And from Miletus Paul sent and called the Elders of the Church. These, say we, were Elders of the Church of Ephesus, to whom in common Paul committeth the ruling of the Church, vers. 28. not to one Bishop over the rest, so that Church was governed by Parity of Elders. To this place he answereth by shewing some Probabilities for both meanings, viz. That these were the Elders of Ephesus; and that they were the Bishops of Asia: but taketh no pains to Answer what is said on either hand, only concludeth, that because there is probability on both hands there is no fixed truth on either; which is most detestable Scepticism: for if there be Arguments for both parts, sure p. 137both cannot be true, seeing they are contradictory, neither can both be false for the same reason, for contradictoriarum altera semper est vera, altera semper est falsa: then it was his part either to shew that neither of the arguments prove any thing, by answering to them, or to hold to the one as true, and not to hang between two. But I prove that these Elders were the Elders of Ephesus, not the Bishops of Asia. 1. (which Argument he mentioneth but he answereth not) the Article in the Greek maketh it clear, it being demonstratory doth apply his Speech to the Church which he had mentioned in particular: where when it's said that he sent to Ephesus and called for the Elders, foreign it might well be translated [of that Church:] it pointeth out that Church and no other. It is an unheard of way of speaking when a particular thing or person is mentioned, and the demonstrative Article joined to it, that that Speech should be understood of any other but that. 2. Paul sent to Ephesus for these Elders, not through the several parts of Asia. Ergo. They were at Ephesus not in other Churches. That he did not send through other places to gather them together is evident both because the Text mentioneth sending to Ephesus, not other places; and it is strange if he sent through all Asia and mention be only made of sending to one place not to any other: also because Paul was then in hast passing by them vers. 16. wherefore 'tis not like that he could stay for the convening of a Synod of Bishops from many remote parts. That which is alledged by some, that the Bishops of Asia did reside at Ephesus, and thence were sent for by Paul, is most absurd; for 1. There is not the least shaddow or reason to think that non residence of fixed Officers did so soon creep into the Church. Let us see any Instance or Warrant to think that any who had a fixed charge did leave it long, or often, or at all, but upon some weighty and extraordinary emergent. 2. What could be their business at Ephesus: their work lay elsewhere, and there they could do nothing except to meet and consult about matters of common concerment: which will not infer ordinary residence there. 3. The work of these Elders p. 138was particular inspection over their Flocks; vers. 28. [over all the Flock] which they could not have if they resided at Ephesus, and had their charges lying up and down Asia, for that probability which he bringeth for the contrary, it is none at all, viz. It is said vers. 18. That he had been with them at all Seasons; but he was not all the time in Ephesus, but abroad in Asia as Act. 19. 10, 22, 26. Answ. [at all Seasons] must not be taken in such rigour as if he had never stirr'd a Foot out of Ephesus; but that he had his residence and Preached most th…re, which is evident from Act. 19. 1, 9. 10. he disputed daily in the School of Tyrannus; this was at Ephesus: and it is said that it continued 2 years, i. e. for the most part of the time he was there, and yet might sometimes Preach elsewhere. For the humane Testimonies he bringeth for either part, I we…e then in the same ballance with him and shall be content to lay no stress upon them. As for the 1 Tim. 3▪ 1. which is his other place, we make no Argument from it▪ but maintain that it speaketh not of a Diocesan Bishop: let them who assert the con…rary prove it. His discourse p. 293. is a very unsavory comparing of some Philosophical Problems which cannot well be determined (and therefore we may hesitate about them) with points of truth revealed in Scripture; as if we might also be Sceptick in these. But sure the Comparison is miserably lame, for 1. These do not concerne our Faith or duty as these other do, and therefore there is much less hazard in Scepticism about the one than the other. 2. Even in those points the motion of the Earth or Heaven, the Flux and Reflux of the Sea, there is some truth in them, though men through darkness cannot see it: neither must we say that nothing there is, because there is nothing certain to us in these things; or that men may impose on our belief what they please in them: hence men are the more studious in searching out these Secrets and give them not over as being destitute of all objective truth. But he dealeth worse with the things of Church-Government; he will have no objective truth in it, and no duty to lye on us in searching out the truth, but that we must believe what men p. 139say of it. For conclusion of what I would say to this ground of his Scepticism about Church-Government, I will but mention several Scriptures. on which the truth in this is built viz. That the Apostolick form was parity, which Mr. Still. hath not so much as touched: neither need I insist on them, seeing Arguments from them are established by our writers, and not enervated by him. One place is 1 Tim. 4. 14. where Tim. is said to be ordained by a Presbytery or company of Elders joyning with Paul in that Action: this could not have been if Elders had not had a Parity of Power. Another is, 1 Cor. 5. 4, 5. where excommunication is transacted by the Authority of a Community, not of a single Person: and so is the relaxing of that Sentence 2 Cor. 2. 8. 10. Also 1 Thess. 5. 12. They who ruled that Church, who were over them, and must be obeyed, were many; not one Person: yea that work and the work of labouring among the People and admonishing them are made to be the business of the same Persons; which is a demonstration that the Presbyters of that Church did rule in common and not a Bishop over them. Heb. 13. 7, 17. proveth also the same thing most clearly. Other places might be brought, but these Instances may shew that Mr. Stilling. undertaking to shew that no place in Scripture determineth what was the Form of Government in the Apostolick Church, doth not touch the most considerable places commonly brought to that purpose: but hath mentioned a few, and those which are least insisted on by them whom he opposeth; and even to them he hath said nothing to scare any from using them as Arguments afterward. His third Argument for the uncertainty of the Primitive or Apostolical Form of Government, taken from the insufficiency of the Testimony of Antiquity, is this; I pass it, because we have ground enough for the certainty of it from Scripture, and what he saith proveth no more but that antiquity is not sufficient to bear witness to it: also because all or most that he there discourseth proveth that it cannot be gathered from ancient records that Episcopacy was the Apostolical form, which we willingly yield.

p. 140Sect. 14. I come then to his 2d proposition mentioned before, which he layeth down p. 322. Thus, That the Apostles in probability did not observe any one fixed course of setling the Government of Churches; but settled it according to the several circumstances of places and Persons which they had to deal with. This assertion he layeth down ex abundanti, not as a Foundation of his opinion but a doctrine of probability, which may tend to compose differences about Church-Government. To clear our way in this dispute with him, let it be observed, 1. That the question being only about Parity and Imparity of Pastors, all other differencies in Apostolick practices that may be alledged are impertinent to this purpose. 2. It helpeth not him, nor harmeth our cause, if we should grant, that the Apostles did in some extraordinary cases vary from their ordinary course: for it is what they did ordinarily, and where no extraordinary cause moved them to do otherwise, that we inquire about. 3. Our question is not about the Government of the Church that was for a time exercised by extraordinary Officers immediately sent of God: but what was the way the Apostles settled that the Church should be governed in by her Ordinary and abiding Officers. Wherefore it maketh nothing for his purpose if it be made out that the Church was some times governed one way by extraordinary Officers, at other times or places another way by ordinary Officers. Taking these considerations along with us, I come to hear the Proofs of this his proposition. The first is taken p. 323. from the different state, condition and quantity of the Churches planted by the Apostles, and here he premiseth 3 things, viz. That God did not give the Apostles equal suceess of their Labours in all places, that a small number of believers did not require the same number of Officers to Teach and Govern them that a greater Church did. 3. That the Apostles did settle Church-Officers according to the probability of increase of Believers, and in order thereto, in some great places. About these I shall not controvert with him; only the 2d must be understood with this distinction, else we cannot p. 141grant it; that a fewer number, if formed into a Church-Society, though it did not need as great a number of Officers of every kind, as Teachers, Elders, Deacons; yet would it need as many sorts of Officers; and the reason is because all those acts are needful to be done to them which must be done to greater Congregations: they must be taught, ruled, and their Poor cared for; and therefore they must not want any of these sorts of Officers whose work these acts were: I mean where such Officers could be had: for Christs Institutions tye not to impossibilities. From these Premisses he inferreth these two conclusions to make out his proposition; the first is p. 325. That in Churches consisting of a small number of believers where there was no great probability of Increase afterwards, one single Pastor with Deacons under him were only constituted by the Apostles for the ruling of these Churches. On this conclusion (before I come to his Proofs of it) I shall make these remarques. 1. Here is nothing here for the Imparity of Presbyters, or the Authority of a Bishop over Presbyters; if where more Presbyters could not be had, one was to do the work, this doth not at all say that the Apostles ever did, or that we may set one over the rest, where many may be had to rule the Church. This conclusion then proveth nothing. 2. These Deacons that here he speaketh of either had ruling power or not: if he say the first I doubt, if he can prove that ever any such Deacons were in the Apostolick Churches, where the Deacons work was to serve, not to rule that Church: and if they had ruling power they were not only Deacons but ruling Elders, both works being laid on the same Persons for want of men to exercise them distinctly; which maketh nothing against Presbyterians. If the second, first I question if any instance can be given of a Church so constituted by the Apostles. 2. If it was so, it was necessity, not choice that made them be without ruling Elders.

Sect. 15. But how proveth he this his conclusion? by 3 or 4 Testimonies out of Clement, Epiph. and others. What? hath he so soon forgot himself? he had immediately before spent about 30 pages in proving that the Testimony p. 142of the Fathers is not sufficient to prove what was the Apostles Practice; and that by making out the defectiveness ambiguity, partiality and repugnancy of the Records of the succeeding Ages: it is strange then that to prove this his assertion concerning Apostolick Practice, he should bring no other Argument at all but such as he had set that Nigrum Theta upon. Neither see I what those Testimonies prove contrary to us. The Testimony of Clement saith no more than what is implyed, Phil. 1. 1. That the Apostles ordained Bishops and Deacons: and our Author himself maintaineth that those were not by their constitution any more than Presbyters: whatever they might after get by mens Institution proveth not what was Apostolick constitution. For the Testimony of Epiphanius he confesseth its intricacie and obscurity, and therefore (by his own Argument, of which before) it is not to be laid weight upon: but he taketh a great deal of pains to explain it and make it speak this, in sum: that at first there were only Bishops and Deacons (by Bishops he meaneth Presbyters, as appears from his Subjoyning immediately that there was necessity for Presbyters and Deacons) and that by these all Ecclesiastical Offices might be performed: but afterward where there was need and there were found any worthy of it, there was a Bishop appointed: but where there were not many to be Presbyters; they were content with a Bishop and Deacons. Here are 3 cases; Presbyters and Deacons; a Bishop and Deacons; this in case of necessity where more Presbyters could not be had: this Bishop, as hath been shewn before, could be nothing above a Presbyter; none of those cross our design: for the third, viz. a Bishop set over Presbyters, first Epiphanius doth not say it was so appointed by the Apostles, but [it was done] it is like he meaneth by succeeding Ages. 2. He doth not say that this Bishop was set over Presbyters with jurisdiction; he might be meerly a praeses, so there is nothing here to prove that the Apostles ever setled any thing contrary to Parity of Presbyters. The Testimony out of Clem. Alexan. even with Salmasius his commentary proveth no more but that in p. 143some places were more Presbyters, in some fewer, in some but one. His last Testimony saith nothing at all to the purpose: only that the Apostles settled things by degrees, not that ever they set up Bishops.

Sect. 16. The 2d Conclusion that he inferreth, p. 332. That in Churches consisting of a multitude of Believers, or where there was a probability of a great increase by preaching the Gospel, the Apostles did settle a College of Presbyters, whose Office was partly to govern the Church already formed, and partly to labour in converting more. This we close with, and from it, and the former Conclusion which make up his whole Argument, infer the quite contrary to his design, viz. That the Apostles kept a most uniform course, (so far as necessity did permit) in setling the Government of Churches: and that they setled the Government in the hands of Presbyters acting in a Society where they could be had, and singly where more could not be: and that they never setled it in the hand of a Bishop Ruling over Presbyters. All this is evident from what hath been said. He taketh occasion, p. 336, &c. to speak against the Office of Ruling-Elders in the Church: in which Dispute he toucheth not any (except one Scripture) of those arguments which are brought by the Defenders of that Office: which is but a slight way of disputing against any Opinion. It is not needful to our Design to handle this Debate fully, till that be answered which is writen by the Author of the Assertion of the Government of the Church of Scotland: by the Author of the Treatise of Ruling-Elders and Deacons: by the London Ministers in their jus divinum Reg. Eccles. and in their Vindication of Pres. Gov. by Smect. by Calv. Just. lib. 4. c. 4. sect. 8. and lib. 4. c. 11. sect. 6. by Peter Martyr, Loc. com. clas. 4. c. 1. num. 11. and many others. Wherefore I shall only answer what this Author hath said against the Truth in this Point. Whereas among many other Scriptures proving this Office, 1 Tim. 5. 17. is brought as one, there being implied there a distinction of Elders that Rule well, and are to be honoured with double Honour; into such as labour in the Word and p. 144Doctrine, and another member of the distinction not expressed, which can be none else but Elders who rule and do not labour in the Word and Doctrine, i. e. whose Office it is only to Rule, not to Teach publickly, as Pastors. Of this Scripture he pretendeth to bring a full, clear and easie understanding, viz. That of the Elders that were ordained in great Churches, (who had power to discharge all Pastoral acts, but did not all attend equally the same part of the work) some did most attend the Ruling of the Flock already converted; others laboured most in converting others by Preaching; and that according to their several abilities: now these last deserved greater Honour, both because their burthen was greater, and their sufferings more. This is no new, though it be a false interpretation: for the Author of Asser. Govern. Ch. of Scotl. p. 48, 46. bringeth it as one of Dr. Fields Answers to the same place: or rather two of them which by our Author are put together. But against this exposition of the Text, I thus argue: 1. This Gloss supposeth that there were Elders, whose Office it was to Teach and to Rule: and yet they did ordinarily neglect the one part of this their work, and contented themselves with doing the other: Is it imaginable that the Lord allows any Honour at all upon such? and yet the Text alloweth double Honour, even on unpreaching Elders, though the Preachers have it more especially. This Reason is strongly enforced, if we consider that Church-Power communicated by Christ to the Officers of his house, is not only a Licence or Permission (as we noted before) but a charge of which they must give an account: as it is said of Church-rulers Heb. 13. 17. Neither do I see how any who by their Office are Preachers of the Gospel, can free themselves of that wherewith the Apostle chargeth himself, 1 Cor. 9. 16 Necessity is laid upon me, yea wo is unto me if I Preach not the Gospel, and of that charge laid on Timothy (who was as much taken up with ruling as any) 2. Tim. 4. 2. that he should Preach the word, be instant in Season, out of Season: May men when Christ hath put them in Office and given them a charge; choose what part p. 145of the work of that Office and Charge they will do, and what not? But I perceive, this Man's principles lead him to subject all Christs Institutions to Mens will, to cut and carve of them as they please: Christ hath given Pastors a charge that they should Teach and Rule his Church. He had pleaded before the Ruling-power may be taken from some, and laid on others; now he affirmeth the same of Teaching-power: this is intolerable boldness. 2. We have no better ground for judging of the diversity of Officers in the Church, than by considering divers sorts of work which some did ordinarily with the Lord's approbation, that others did not, but were employed in other work. What better Note can we have to know what is a Mans Office; than his work which he is ordinarily employed in, and that with God's own approbation? Wherefore, if some Elders Preached, others preached not, but Ruled; we must think that these were distinct Officers, and that their Office led them only to do what they did. 3. This learned Author should have brought some reason for what he alledgeth, viz. That these unpreaching Eledrs, who Ruled, had power to preach; foreign, shall not persuade us of it: neither is there the least shew of warrant for such an Assertion. If it be said that they preached sometimes, and therefore could not be without Preaching-power. Answ. It cannot be proved that there were any Officers in the Apostolick Church, who had Preaching-power, or did sometimes Preach, and yet were so taken up with Ruling, that they did not ordinarily Preach. 4. We may with as much (yea the same) reason say, That every Officer in the Church had all Church-power, and might occasionally exert it; though some according to their gift did ordinarily exert one part; others, another: and that Deacons might preach, and do all the work of the Pastors, though ordinarily, being better gifted for that, they served Tables: but this is to jumble together what the Lord hath made an ordinary separation of. 5. This Opinion maketh the different work that Church-Officers are employed in, not to proceed from distinct Office or Power, but from different gifts, which would bring a Babel of confusion p. 146into the Church; For 1. As Men think they are gifted, so will they take up their Work; and so most will readily incline to the easiest work, and think their gift lieth that way, to the great neglect of the difficult and main business; and because Ruling is sweet to an ambitious mind, and laborious preaching is painful; we shall have abundance of Rulers, but few Teachers. 2. By the same reason one may neglect all the parts of his work, that he may neglect one: pretending that his gift is not for this, nor for that, and that they may be done by others. If it must be said▪ the Church must appoint them their work, and not leave it to their choice. Answ. If the Church appoint Timothy's work to be to Rule, and exempt him from preaching ordinarily; I see not how he differeth from the Ruling-Elders, which this Author disputeth against, notwithstanding his supposed power to Preach; which to him is an idle Talent (I mean, if this be done warrantably: otherwise it is not done) especially, if the Church give him no more power than Christ hath given to every Pastor, that is, to Rule over the flock with the equal concurrence of his fellow-Presbyters; not to rule over Presbyters by himself singly: for that they cannot give him this Power, I have before proved. 6. If the Elders that preach, because of the greatness of their work and sufferings, have more honour than they who only Rule; then the Bishop being of this last sort, must be inferiour in honour to those other Presbyters: especially this must hold in the opinion of this Author, who holdeth, That Bishop and Presbyter differ not jure divino: but this I suppose will not well please his Lordship and indeed is very unsuitable to the dignity of one who Ruleth over others: sure the dignity of Church-Officers is to be reckoned by the dignity of their place; where it is different: as it is by the discharge of their work where their place is the same.

Sect. 17. To strengthen this his Conceit, he brings a testimony out of Chrysost. affirming, that the foreign, the fixed Officers of particular Churches, who were foreign, were p. 147inferiour to them, who preaching the Gospel, travelled abroad into divers places. Answ. This is not at all to the purpose: for they who so travelled abroad, were Evangelists; no fixed Officers: but of the former, the Apostle doth not at all speak here; It rather appeareth (saith the Author, Asser. 1. Gover. Ch. Scotl.) that Elders were ordained in every City, there to abide with their particular charges, Acts 14. 23. Tit. 1. 5. He argueth also thus against Ruling-Elders: These Elders are not the Bishops Paul speaketh of, 1 Tim. 3. For these must be foreign, verse 2. l. Answ. The Author now cited, answereth this Argument brought by Dr. Field, and citeth Beza, answering to Sarav. who had used it. Passing his first Answer, I make use of the 2d, which is Beza's, That the Ruling-Elder, though he ought not to Teach publickly as a Pastor, yet he ought to Teach privately, and occasionally, according as the need of every one requireth: it is his part to oversee the manners of the people, and to bring miscarriages to the Church, to be censur'd; but first he is to labour to reclaim the Offender by private admonition, according to Christ's Rule, Matth. 18. 15, 16, 17. and that not only ex charitate, as every Christian ought to do; but virtute Officii and authoritatively: and for this cause he ought to be a Man of Understanding above the common sort, both able and willing to Teach (so the word beareth) so far as his place requireth. Again, he argueth from Act. 20. 28. All the Elders of Ephesus had a Pastoral charge, for they are bid take heed to the Flock as Overseers: but this is inconsistent with the Notion of a Lay-Elder, Ergo, there were none such at Ephesus. Answ. The Major is false: they had a charge and oversight: but every oversight is not Pastoral. Ruling also falleth under this Notion, which is the Office of the Elder we plead for. He confesseth, p. 338. the weakness of that argument from Maintenance, which he saith brought Blondel quite off from Ruling-Elders, in that place of 1 Tim. 5▪ 17. It is true, Blondel de jur. Pleb. in Reg. Eccl. p. 77, &c. alledgeth, That these Elders are not there meant, because Maintenance p. 148(implied in double Honour, as is clear from ver. 18. compared) is due to these, but not to Ruling-Elders. Yet the Argument, with all the enforcements of that learned Author, will not prove what he designeth. For 1. Some famous Interpreters understand this double Honour, only of a degree of Honour beyond these spoken of before, viz. Widows, so Calv. in loc. 2. How shall it be proved, that Maintenance is not due to Ruling-Elders, or the seniores plebis, as Blondel calleth them? His arguments taken from the difuse of it, will not conclude this: neither what he saith of the want of Power in any to remit it: for where it cannot be had for them, necessity excuseth the withholding of it: where it cannot be had, let the Inhauncers of Church-Rents answer for it, if such necessaries be not supplied to the Church: neither do I blame him for blaming (p. 83.) these Protestant Nations, who have cast out Abbacies which abounded in Riches, have rather taken the Revenues into the State-Treasury, than allowed it for such good Uses as this. I add for further answer out of Asser. Gover. Ch. Scotl. p. 105. That a stipend, though due, is not essential to the Office, either of Elders or Ministers; and therefore the want of the one, can be no argument against the other; But neither is Blondel against the Office of Ruling-Elders (though he deny them to be spoken of in 1 Tim. 5. 17. but disputeth strongly for it, yea, and groundeth it on the Apostles practice, p. 85, which is an evidence of Divine Right. The next thing Mr. Stilling. saith against Ruling-Elders, is, That if we remove from the Scripture to the Primitive Church, we shall find the greatest difficulty to trace the footsteps of a Lay-Elder through the Records of Authority for the first 3 Centuries especially. Answ. 1. We look on the Scripture as a surer Word of Prophecy, and therefore are unwilling to pass from it, to that which Mr. Stilling hath above proved, to be utterly so insufficient to determine in matters of Church-Government. 2. Others are of another mind that this Author. Blondel. de jur. pleb. in Reg. Eccl. p. 85. aliis igitur, saith he, firmamentis, iis nimirum, qui nobis Apostolorum primamque per trium saeculorum p. 149culorum periodum antiquitatis, praxin stravit, seniorum plebis Institutio & functio (ut sic dicam) vitae à protestantibus per Gallias, Scotiam, Belgiam instituta statuminanda est. And Asser. Grov. Ch. Scot. par. 1. c. 8, 9. Unpregnable and abundant Testimonies out of Antiquity are brought for this Office, which seeing Mr. Stilling. hath not Answered, it is needless to insist on them. 3. But, and if in many places in the Primitive times this Office was difused, it was their fault, and taken notice of by the better sort, Calv. in 1 Tim. 5. 17. speaking of this Office, saith, Hunc morem Ambrosius absolevisse conqueritur doctorum Ignavia, vel potius superbia dum soli volunt eminere. See Testimonies for the Antiquity of it, Smect. sect. 15.

Sect. 18. His second proof of his second Proposition, viz. That the Apostles took diverse courses in Ruling Churches, is p. 340. from the multitude of unfixed Officers residing in some places, who managed the affairs of the Church in chief, during their residence: such were Apostles and Evangelists. In some places, saith he, these were, others not, and in some places no Officers but these. Answ. This is obviated by our 3d Observ. For the Question is only about Government by ordinary and abiding Officers, and that only where they could be had, of whom this proof doth not speak. His 3d Proof, ibid. is from the different customs observed in the Church after the Apostles times. This is most inconsequent: yea, one might as well reason thus: In after-times they set up Metropolitans, and at last a Pope, Ergo, it was so in the Apostles times. We say then, That diversity in after Ages flowed from this; that Men (following Mr. Stilling. Principles) did not follow divine Institution, or Apostolick practice, but their own Wit and Reason. Beside, the diversities he here instanceth in, are not to the purpose; for he doth not shew us that Parity was in one place, and imparity in another; but that in one place the Presbyters chused their Bishop, in another not.

Sect. 19. We come at last to his 3d proposition about Apostolick practice p. 341. viz. That a meer Apostolical p. 150practice being supposed, is not sufficient of it self for the founding of an unalterable and perpetual Rite for the Form of Government in the Church which is supposed to be founded on that Practice. This doctrine he laid down before par. 1 c. 1. p. 23. And we examined p. … where I stated that question far otherwise than he seemeth here to do; and indeed th…s proposition, as here laid down, might be yielded by us: neither doth it nor his Arguments for it touch th… controversie, which is andabatarum more pugnare. We lay no obligation on any by a meer Apostolical Practice; but by their Practice considered as done in the same case that we are in. Neither 2. do we say that such practice is sufficient of it self to bind us, for it hath Gods command of Imitation, of which before; and equal Morality of that action to us and then to concur with it in this. Neither do we say. 3. That their Practice doth found a Riet: it doth but declare what is founded on the will of Christ as that which we must do. Most of all his Arguments are obviated by what is already said. The first, that they did many things without intention of obliging others, as going abroad to Preach the Gospel unprovided; Pauls not taking wages &c. This doth not touch the point, seeing these things were for a peculiar reason. To the same purpose is the 2d Argument p. 343. (which indeed is but the same Argument) that they did many things on particular occasions, emergencies and circumstances; as Pauls celebate, Community of goods, Preaching in private Houses, Fields, &c. That which only is worth the noticing in this Argument is p. 344. That he requireth, before Apostolical Practice be obligations, that it be made appear that what they did was not according as they saw reason depending on the several circumstances of Time, place and persons, but from some unalterable Law of Christ. Answer. This we are able to prove, as to ruling the Churches by a Parity of Elders, for they did ordinarily so practice, and that where the place, persons and times were not the same: neither can it be shewed that ever they did otherwise, i. e. set up a Bishop over Presbyters: is not this sufficient ground page missing p. 153der) this Mystery of iniquity had begun to work, 2 Thes. 2. 7. It is no wonder then, that soon after it began to appear: and when some had thus miscarried, and others stuck to the Apostolical frame of things, this might quickly breed a diversity. 3. It will easily appear to any who readeth this Chap. that all the Authours discourse tendeth to prove that the ancient Churches thought not Episcopacy to be jure divino: let them who are concerned answer him in this if they can; I am convinced of the truth of what he saith. But let us take a short view of the grounds on which he establisheth what he asserteth in this Chap.

Sect. 2. The first is, That the extent of the Power of Church-Officers did increase meerly from the enlargment of the bounds of Churches: which he maketh out in 4 steps or periods. The first is, when Churches were the same with Christians in a whole City. And here he handleth 3 things, first he sheweth that the Primitive constitution of Churches was in a Society of Christians in the same City: where he will have the name [Church] in Scripture to be only given to that, not a particuler congregation meeting in one place. I do not deny but the name is given as he saith, because of that confederacy in discipline among divers congregations in one City: yet neither the name nor the nature of a Church must be denied to a single congregation; for a Church in Scripture-Language is a company met together to serve God: now this agreeth well to a single Congregation; seeing in it not only word and Sacraments are administred, but also discipline is exercised, as shall anon appear. All that he saith proveth the former Use of the word; but nothing against this latter. 2. He speaketh of the Government of these Churches p. 352. And that 1. before Parishes, or distinct Congregations were settled. 2. after they were settled (about which he largely disputeth when it began, which is not to our purpose) in both cases, he saith, they were ruled in common; and p. 354. That it is a weak conceit to think that after the setling of Congregations, every one had a distinct Presbytery to rule it, and p. 356. this crumbling saith he, of p. 154Church-Power into every Congregation is a thing absolutely disowned by the greatest and most Learned Patrons of Presbytery beyond the Seas, as may be seen in Calv. Beza, Salmasius, Blondel, Gerson, Bucer and others. I do readily yield to him, that it is most probable that in times of Persecution, particular congregations could not be soon settled: and than then, where there were in one City more Christians then could meet in one place, they were ruled only in Common, yea and had their meetings for worship occasionally as they could. Also we grant that when Congregations were settled, the several Congregrations in one City were ruled by one common Presbytery made up of the Officers of them all: but that they had not their distinct Presbyters that ruled them severally in subordination to this superior Presbyters we utterly deny; and I look upon it as a too supercilious assertion, to call this a weak conceit-seeing it is well known that it hath been the Judgment of men with whom, for ability, I think Mr. Still. modesty will not suffer him to compare himself. But what ever be of the ability of them who own it; there is reason for it so weighty, as may excuse it from weakness; which is this: Single Congregations meeting ordinarily together for the worship of God, cannot but have many affairs that do only concern them, not the other Churches or Congregations in the same City; as admission or exclusion of their members from the Lords Supper, rebuking them, consulting about the time and ordering of their Administration &c. 'Tis very unfit to bring all these things, in prima instantia, to the Presbytery that ruleth in common. This I confirm out of what himself hath written, p. 368. He saith that Country Churches had their own rulers who ruled them, though with subordination to those in the City: is there not the same reason why particular Congregations, though in City should have their Rulers? 'tis as really inconvenient to bring every matter of a City-Congregation, at the first hand, to the common Presbyters, as it is to bring the matters of a Country Parish to it. Yet we acknowledge that it is to be ordered according as it conduceth most to the good of p. 155the Church: neither if we should yield all that he saith, is it any thing against the Divine Right of Parity. What he saith of these worthy Divines disowning this Power of particular Congregations, we have cause to suspend our belief of it, till he bring some testimony of their own writings to prove it, which he hath not so much as essaid. It is like they were against Independent Power of Particular Congregations; not their subordinate Power: for the Testimonies that he bringeth they prove no more than what we have granted, viz. That the Congregations were ruled in common: not, that they had no particular Government in each of them; as any may easily see by considering them. Neither is it any wonder that the records of Antiquity speak of the acts of those greater, not of the lesser and Congregational Presbyteries: seeing matters coming before the latter were of so private concernment; such as use not often to be so much taken notice of. The 3d thing he speaketh of in this first step of the growth of Churches, is, what Relation the Churches in several Cities had one to another, and to the lesser City, that were under them: and here he maintaineth that Metropolitans are not of Divine Right; to which we agree: I add, that in the first and more pure Primitive times they had no Being at all, as is clearly made out by Diocl. Altar. Damasc. c. 2. Where he sheweth that Justine and Jreneus have nothing of the different degrees of Bishops: and that Cyprian in the middle of the third Century doth often assert their Parity. The second step is, p. 368. When Churches took in the Villages and Territories adjoining to that Citie: he saith, that the City-Presbyters did Preach in these places, and adjoined the Converts to the City-Church▪ till after, when they were increased in Villages they got peculiar Officers set over them, who did rule them, yet with subordination to the City-Church. This last I only dislike: neither do I see it proved by him, for the Titles of matrix ecclesia, et Cathedra principalis signifie no more but a greater dignity and primacy of Order, not of Jurisdiction. What he saith of that Eulogie, sending abroad consecrated pieces of bread, doth p. 156not prove the point: and also it was a superstitious custome: the bad improvement of it appeareth in the Popish adoration of their Hostia. His next step is p. 372. When Churches did associate in one Province: where he speaketh of Provincial Synods once a year, and sheweth that no Bishop had power over another, but that their Honour depended on their Sees. Thence he cometh to the last step, when the whole World became Christians, and the Bishops of Rome and Constantinople did strive for the place of Universal Bishop. I hope it appeareth to any who consider, that there is nothing yet said by him which can overturn the Divine Rite of Parity, even to have been maintained in the Primitive times (I mean not of the last step he speaketh of, when Papacy it self began to appear) for all that hath been said sheweth that Imparity was never judged of necessity; and that the Imparity which was used was rather of Order than of Jurisdiction, which is nothing against the Divine Rite of that Parity we plead for.

Sect. 3. His 2d Argument p. 374. is, That the same Form was not of old observed in all Churches: where he sheweth that in many places, there were no Bishops; as he proveth of Scotland and other places. This we accept of, and add, that where there were Bishops, it is not, nor cannot be by him proved, that they had any Superior Jurisdiction, but only Precedency: and so the Divine Rite of Parity may stand for all this. His 3d Argument p. 377. is, That the Government of the Church was conform to the Civil Government, which he saith is insisted on by Learned Persons on all sides; especially after the division of the Roman Empire. And he giveth some Instances of it in the correspondency of Civil Prefects and Arch-Bishops in several places. To all this let me say a few words. 1. This Argument destroyeth it self: for in the first antiquity which was the surest, the Powers of the World were not Christian, and so the Church could not conform to the state in her Offices. 2. It is here confessed, that this Conformity was especially (I believe it may be said only) after that division of the Roman Empire: but those were the times when the p. 157man of Sin had almost got into his chair; and therefore their practice can prove nothing of the mind of the Primitive Church. 3. If this notion hold, then it must be looked upon as a lawful and prudent expedient, that there be one Pope as there was one Emperor. This Mr. Still. must maintain, or he saith nothing. 4. If this was their Rite of old, then the Church behoved to be under two chief Bishops when the Roman Emperor was divided into two. But this he doth not alledge, but rather sheweth how it was divided into 13 Diocesses. 5. If we receive this opinion, then in a Kingdome there must be one head, who must have his Councel of Bishops, without a charge of the several Diocesses (for the Kings Council hath not Precedency of several parts of the Country) and they must authorize their deputies, like Sheriffs, yearly &c. And in a Common-wealth there must be Independant Government: but this I hope the Author will not own. 6. It is most unreasonable to say that the Church-Government should be conform to the Civil; because they are conversant about things and aim at ends so different: the one respecteth things that are most different in several Nations, viz. Mens Civil Interest, and Customes and Inclinations: the other respecteth that which ought to be every where the same, viz. Religion. His 4. Argument p. 379. is, That other Episcopal Government was settled in the Church, yet Presbyterian Ordination was looked on as valid. This is not againt us. His last Argument p. 382. is, That several restraints were laid on by Councils about the Observation of Rites and Customes and something of Church-Discipline; but what is this I pray to Parity or Imparity? we are not against determinations of Indifferent things that concern order and decency: though we think that the Form of Government is determined by Christ, not left to the will of man.