Answer to Stillingfleets Irenicum, Chapter 7
CHAP. VIII.
IN this Chapter our Author would make us believe, that all the world was ever of his Opinion: and indeed this is so common for men to alledg, whatever be their singular notions of things, that we are not to lay much weight upon it. Videlius took as much pains to make all reformed Divines to speak for Erastianism. I might excuse my self from medling any further with this last Chapter of his. 1. From the needlesness of the thing; because we do not build the Divine Right of Presbytery on mens Opinions, who we know can err, and therefore if all the world were against it, if the Scripture be for it so must we. 2. From the disadvantage I lie under as to this part of the dispute with him. If I had been of Mr. Still. opinion in this point in controversie, I might through compliance with courses have been furnished with a good Library and other conveniencies of studying, the want of which doth incapacitate me to search into the opinions of those worthy men which he citeth: in doing whereof, I hope it would not be difficult to shew that some of their Testimonies are made to speak otherwise than they thought; and others of them are irreconcilable with what themselves have elsewhere written.
Sect. 2. Notwithstanding we shall essay briefly to say as much to his allegations, as may take off that edge they seem to have, for cutting asunder the cause which we maintain. P. 384. he hath a confident assertion. I believe, saith he, there will upon the most impartial survey, scarce be one Church of the Reformation brought which doth embrace any form of Government, because it looked upon that form as only necessary by an unalterable standing Law: but every one took up that form of Government which was judged most sutable to the state and condition of the several Churches. I wonder to see this so confidently asserted, without proof. It had been incumbent on Mr. Still. for confirming this his dream, to have gone through the confession of the several reformed Churches; and let us see on what ground they then built their Church-Government; for it will not sufficiently prove what was the judgment of these Churches, that some eminent men in them did assert such things: which latter of the two he only insisteth on, and that to little purpose too, as I hope shall appear. But the falsehood of this Allegiance I will make appear afterwards, when I have tried the strength of the Testimonies he bringeth for his opinions.
Sect. 3. He beginneth with them who have asserted the mutability of the form of Government in Thesi where he maketh it his chief business to shew, that the Church of England of old was of this opinion. To which I answer, That those worthy men having nothing in their eye but Episcopacy; their work was to oppose the Divine Right of that: there was never an other form brought in competition with it, nor much minded by them: and therefore we agree with them in their design. Of Foreign Divines, his first Testimony is of Chemnitius: to which I cannot give a particular answer, because not having his book I cannot try it: only this consideration I shall lay down, to take off the strength of it. Neither Mr. Still, nor any man else ought to lay weight on this Testimoney to the purpose it is brought for: for either he meaneth that the degrees of Church-Officers in respect of precedency are left free, or in respect of Jurisdiction: if the first, it is nothing contrary to what we hold, for we acknowledg it indifferent, whether there be a standing Precedent … Presbytery or not. If the second, he is directly contrary to Mr. Stillingfleet, who maintains, that the Church may set up no new Officers but what Christ hath instituted; as we have seen before: now an order of Officers with jurisdiction above what Christ hath instituted, cannot but be a sort of Officers that he hath not instituted: wherefore Mr. Still. could not make Use of this Testimony, neither ought any else, for it crosseth the Scripture; which (Rom. 12. 6, 7, 8. Ephes. 11. 1. 1 Cor. 12. 28.) doth on purpose enumerate the Officers of the Church in all their degrees. I dispute not now what they are; but sure they are not left at liberty; seeing the Lord hath so often declared his mind in this Point: to what purpose is it said that the Lord hath in his Church such and such Officers; if men may at their pleasure set these or others, more or fewer of them in the Church.
Sect. 4. His next Testimony is the Centuriators of Magdeburge, but it containeth an answer in its forehead, viz. That it speaketh not to the thing; for they say no more but that it is neither Recorded, nor Commanded, how many Ministers should be in each Church; but that their may be more or fewer, according to the number of the Church. What is this to their parity or imparity? 'tis a token that he is very scant of Witnesses, when he calleth in them who say so little to his purpose. The next Testimony is of Zanchy, which he maketh to speak very fair for him: but he hath unhandsomly concealed that which is the Key to understand the meaning of this Author; for the Reader may evidently see his drift, if he first look into Sect. 9. (de Relig. c. 25.) where he asserteth that Christ hath only given to his Church two sorts of ordinary Teachers, viz. Pastors and Doctors: the same he asserteth, Sect. 10. and yet (which is his modesty) he will not condemn the Fathers who had other Orders of Officers: but what his meaning is, in this his condescendency, he explaineth Sect. 11. That whereas in after Ages, one Pastor was set over the rest (non ut Dominus, sed ut Rector in Academia reliquis Collegis,) this he thinketh was lawful, and yet setteth this note upon that practice in the same Sect. Qua de re Hieronymi tum alibi, tum in Epist. ad Evagr. & in Commentar. Epist. ad Tit. c. 10. Narratio & sententia nobis probatur, dicentis totum hoc magis ex consuetudine quam ex dominicae dispositionis veritate profectum esse. Which is as much as to say, He thought it rather somewhat tolerable through necessity, than allowable. Which small glance at the tolerableness of a Precedency in the Church (if it may pass for so much) was not well taken by other Worthy Divines; as appeareth by Zanchius's own observations on this his Confession (which Mr. Stilling. taketh notice of, but passeth what might make against him) for Magnus quidem vir, as Zant. calleth him: who was well satisfied with the rest of his Confession, excepteth this which he had said of the Arch-Bishops and Hierarchie; and that not only as what did dispease himself, but was unsutable to the harmony of confessions that the Protestant Churches were then drawing up: as appeareth by a part of an Epistle of that Magnus vir, to Zan. which he inserteth to the Preface to his Observations. So that it seems, this was generally disliked by Protestant Divines, contrary to what Mr. Stilling. would make us believe, viz. That all the Protestant Churches thought the form of Government indifferent. All which being laid together, let any then judg what great advantage Mr. Stilling's cause hath received from this Testimony of Zanchie. Especially, if we consider with what Weapon Zan. defendeth this his Opinion, viz. That it was generally practised by the Ancient Church; and he would not take upon him to disallow them: as may be seen in his Observations on Chap. 25. of his Confessions. We see he bringeth no better Warrant than the practice of Men who might, and did in many things err. But Mr. Stilling. telleth us of the same Opinion of Zan. de 4to praec. loc. 4. qu. 2. p. 943, &c. and indeed he teacheth the same thing▪ but with some advantage to our design: for, after he had made the ordinary Officers to be of three sorts, viz. Pastors, and Doctors, and Ruling-Elders (whose Office he proveth from Scripture, and asserteth as the Opinion of the Reformed Divines generally) and Deacons: and had proved at length p. 950, 951, 952. Presbyters and Bishops to be the same in Scripture: He sheweth p. 952, 953. That in after-Ages one of the Presbyters was set over the rest: but addeth, to qualifie it p. 953. Idcirco damnari haec, piae vetustatis ordinatio & consuetudo non potest, modo plus sibi authoritatis non usurpet Episcopus quà habent reliqui Ministri, ut recte monet Hieronymus. Here he overturneth all Mr. Stilling's design, for such a Bishop is but a meer President. He thinks he hath gain'd another Testimony from M. Bucer, whom Zan. in those his observations citeth: but Mr. Stilling▪ hath not told us wherein Bucer speaketh to his purpose; wherefore take this account of Bucer's Opinion out of Zanch. He citeth two large Testimonies of Bucer: the first is out of his Commentary on the Ephes. where he speaketh of seven kinds of Teaching, viz. By Reading, Interpretation, Instruction, (Doctrina) Exhortation, Catechisms, Disputing, private Admonition: from which he saith, That in the Ancient Church they brought in seven kinds of Teachers. Now what is this to the Parity or imparity of Ministers? He speaketh nothing here of setting a Lord-Bishop over his Brethren, as a thing lawfully practised in the ancient Church. Yea, if we consider his Discourse well, we shall find that these were not divers Offices, but the work of the Pastors divided among more, where there were many Officers in one Church: yet so as all might exercise▪ all these Duties; and so here is no multiplication of Offices beyond Christ's Institution. Though I do not deny, that this distributing of the work of Ministers did afterwards begin to be looked upon, as making several orders of Officers: but this he doth not approve of. The second Testimony of Bucer is out of his de Discipl. Clerical. The sum of which is this (for the words are too long to be transcribed)▪ That in the Ancient Church they set up a Bishop among the Presbyters; Vt Consul inter Senatores, (this is devolving their Power into his hands, which Mr. Still. pleadeth for) That these Bishops and Presbyters did meet when occasion required, in Synods; that one was over the Synod to convocate and moderate it, (this is not to have Jurisdiction over the rest) who was called Metropolitan, from the chief City, where he used to reside: then over the Metropolitans were set up Patriarchs (but behold how careful he is to protest against imparity, as to Jurisdiction) of whom he saith, His tamen Primatibus Episcopis nihil omnino juris erat in alios Episcopos aliasve Ecclesias, ultra quod dixi cuique Metropolitae in Ecclesias atque Episcopos suae provinciae: Which, we took notice before, was to convocate and moderate the Synod. At last he sheweth how among these Patriarchs the Bishop of Rome was set up as Chief: and then how all good Order went to ruine. Now let this Testimony be considered, and we shall hope for more advantage by it, than Mr. Stilling. could expect. From it we draw these two Conclusions: 1. That Bucer looked upon setting up a Precedent over Presbyters, as the greatest length that the Primitive Church did or could go towards the making of imparity among Ministers. 2. That even this their practice, though not unlawful in it self; yet is so inconvenient, that it was the Method and Mean that Antichrist got into his Chair by.
Sect. 5. He cometh next to the French Divines, and beginneth with Fregevile, whose Testimony we think not worth the Answering, seeing as Mr. Still. confesseth, he was Episcopal. His opinion did not suit well with the principles of that Church he lived in, as we shall see after. The next is Blondel, that learned writer for Presbyters, as he is called: whose words cited by Mr. Still. are not at all to the purpose; as any may see at first view; seeing he saith no more, but, that it is in the Churches Power to make a perpetual Precedent or not. For Bochartus his opinion, that neither Presbyterialis nor Episcopalis ordo is juris divini: if he mean the difference between them in jurisdiction, and not only in Precedency: I see not how it can be defended, and not having his Book I cannot determine how consistent it is with his own principles. For Amiraldus, whom he bringeth next, his design of Union with the Lutherans, I believe, did either stretch his opinion or made him stretch his affections to an excess of condescendency; which cannot be excused but from his good Intention.
Sect. 6. Our Author cometh next to those who look on Parity as the Primitive Form, and yet allow Episcopacy as a very Lawful and usefull constitution. Concerning those, I premise 2 general Remarques. 1. That what these worthy Divines say to this purpose is to be understood, not of Episcopus Princeps, but Praeses, according to that distinction very common among them. This we must hold as only consistent with their principles, till the contrary be proved out of their own writings. 2. That many things said by them to this purpose were the over reaches of their desire to be one with them who differed from them in this, but agreed in most things as the Lutherans and some English Divines: they did often (as Smect. saith of Spanhem to the same purpose, p. 65.) deliver a Complement rather than their Judgment. But to come to particulars: he beginneth with Cracanthorp, who excuseth all the Reformed Churches from Aerianism, because they held not Imparity to be unlawful. But this man was a Son of the Church of England (as they speak) and wrote in her defence against Ant. de Domin. wherefore his Testimony of the opinion of the Reformed Churches is not to be taken, being willing to have them all think as he did. They are better defended from siding with Aerius by Smect. p. 79. where it is proved, that Aerius was condemned for his Arianism and other Errors, but not for holding the Divine Right of Parity: and that Jerome, Augustus, Sedulius, Primatius, Chrisostome, Theodoret, Oecumenius, Theophylact, were of the same opinion with Aerius in this. Next he bringeth the Augustane confession: of the Testimony of which I have these 3 things to say. 1. This was not a confession of them who are ordinarily called the Reformed Churches; but of the Lutherans; for at the same meeting at Augusta did Zuinglius and the Helvetians give in their confession apart, by themselves: wherefore it is no wonder, if these worthy men, who were a reforming, but had not attained to that pitch of it which others had, did retain some small tincture of the way according to which they had been bred in this point. 2. Luther himself was not well pleased with this confession, as appeareth by the Relation of Pezelius, who (Mellifie. Histor. par. 3. p. 336.) saith thus. Autor vero confessionis cum Luthero qui in Pontifioiis concessum Stomachabatur confessionem rudem magis magis que ne spiritum extingueret, limabat, poliebat, et duriuscula, fermentumque vetus redolentiaexpurgabat: via enim justi sicut aurora lucere pergit usque ad meridiem, id quod ex ipsa apologia apparet. 3. All that is said in this confession, is no more but an expression of their desire to conform and condescend to the Papists in the Primitive order of the Church: but this was no more but the Precedency of Bishops; the confession speaketh not of the Lordly power of Bishops as it then stood; that they could yield to that: so that even the furthest they go, in their complemental condescendency, doth not help Mr. Still's cause; who pleadeth for the sole jurisdiction of Bishops as lawful.
Sect. 7. In the next place, he is not ashamed to force Calvin to speak for the lawfulness of Episcopacy, which he could never comport with while he lived. He bringeth his Instit. lib. 4. c. 4. sect. 1. & 4. in both which Sections he alledgeth no more out of him but this; That the ancient Bishops had almost nothing in their Canons which was beside the Word of God: and that they used no other form of Governing the Church, than was prescribed in the Word. What doth this help his Cause? The Ancient Bishops in Calvins judgment, were no more but Praesides: These, he saith, were not constituted beside the word of God. This is nothing to the scope of our Authors Discourse. I hope after to shew that Calvin was far from His mind. At present let it suffice to observe, that the very words cited by Mr. Still. do make against him. For when Calvin saith, Si rem omisso vocabulo, intuemur, reperiemus veteteres Episcopos non aliam regendae ecclesiae formam voluisse fingere ab ea, quam deus verbo suo praescripsit: It is not evident, that he supposeth God in his Word to have prescribed a form of Church-Government. And 2dly, That he asserteth, that the Ancient Bishops (if we look to the thing, and do not understand the name [Bishop] as now it is used for the Prelate) did stick close to this Form; what could be more directly against Mr. Still.? Neither is he more happy in the citing of Beza for him: for Beza's distinction of Bishop is well known, in Divinus, i. e. Presbyter; Humanus, i. e. &c. a President or constant Moderator; & Diabolicus, i. e. a Prelate with sole jurisdiction. The indifferency of the 2d he asserteth, and will not prescribe that Form used at Geneva (which was without such a fixed President) to other Churches: but what is this to the purpose? It is a pity to see a Learned Man at so much pains, and lose his labour. It being so as hath been shewed. Mr. Still. doth fouly misrepresent the state of the Controversie about Church-Government, that was between the Church of England and of Geneva in Queen Elizabeths time: it was not, as he alledgeth, whether Parity or Episcopacy were more convenient: but whether Prelacy putting sole jurisdiction in the hand of a Bishop, or giving him power over his Brethren, were lawful.
Sect. 8. Next he bringeth George Prince of Anhalt, Luther, Melancton, and Calvin, professing their readiness to submit to Bishops, if they would do the duty of Bishops. All which amounts to no more than this, That if Bishops would keep within bounds, not usurp Authority over their Brethren, nor use it to the destruction of Religion, they might be born with; but this maketh nothing for the lawfulness of Prelacy, which these Men did ever detest. For Jacobus Heerbrandus, I am not acquainted with his Principles, nor his Book. Hemingius (who cometh next) speaketh expresly of dispares dignitatis ordines, not authoritatis; and so cometh not up to the thing in Question. For Zepper his judgment of the necessity of a Superintendent, it destroyeth our Authors Hypothesis; for if it be necessary, it is not indifferent. If in any case such a thing be necessary, it is in that case lawful, (nam necessitas quicquid coegit defendit) in other cases it is unlawful. What he saith of Bishops in some Lutheran Churches, as Sweden, Denmark, &c. doth not weigh with us, knowing that they err in greater matters also. What he saith of other Churches that have their Praepositi or Seniores enjoying the same power with Ancient Bishops; proveth nothing of the lawfulness of Prelacy; We think their way lawful: and whether it be convenient to them, or not, we judg not, but to us, sad experience hath proved it most inconvenient. The next thing that he insisteth on, viz. Episcopal Divines, holding Episcopacy not necessary, it doth not concern us to Answer, and so we see to what amounteth the strength of these Testimonies, which he would fright us with, as if all Men were of his judgment.
Sect. 9. Having now seen of what force are our Authors Witnesses, brought for the indifferency of the Form of Church-Government; let us see if there can be more pregnant Authority brought for the divine Right of it. I do not question but many sheets may be filled with pertinent Citations to this purpose, by one better stored with Writings of our Reformed Divines, and having leisure to search them. I shall give some instances, such as my poor Library doth afford, both of Churches and of particular Divines. And before the Restorers of the Truth, I shall mention those famous Conservators of it in the darkest times of Antichristianism, the Waldenses, whom some of our Divines call Majores Nostros: their Opinion in this may be seen in Waldensiâ Confes. Taboritarum per Joa. Lukawitz. cap. 3. p. 5. Lex evangelica Jesu Christi—per se sufficientissima ad regimen Ecclesiae militantis, &c. 14. p. 32. Nos qui pro lege liberrima Jesu Christi per se sufficienti, ad regimen Ecclesiae militantis, sine Ceremoniis Legis veteris & ritibus humantis post adjectis, scientes, quia securissimum est & optimum Magisterium Ecclesiae primitivae, quam regebant Apostoli, actus imitari. We see here the sufficiency of Scripture for Church-Government asserted, and that without new Laws or humane devices; which could not be if the particular Form were not determined in it, but left to Mens devising: Also, that Apostolick practice is in this a Rule to us; both which militate against Mr. Stilling's Discourse. I shall next bring the opinion of the French and the Dutch Churches, held forth in their Confessions: which I have out of Smect. sect. 14. The French Church Artic. 29. 30. speaketh thus: Credimus veram Ecclesiam gubernari debere, eâ politiâ quam dominus noster Jesus Christus sancivit (then it may not be such as Men think fit, nor is it indifferent) ita, viz. aut sui in ea Pastores, Presbyteri, sive seniores & Diaconi (then Christs institution is against Bishops, seeing he appointeth the rest, and leaveth them out) ut doctrinae puritas retineatur. Credimus omnes Pastores ubicunque collocati sint, eadem & aequali potestate inter se esse praeditos (then there can be no imparity of power) sub uno illo capite & solo universali Episcopo Jesu Christi. The Dutch Church, Art. 30. thus: Credimus veram hanc Ecclesiam debere regi ac gubernari, spirituali illa politia quam nos deus ipse in verbo suo edocuit, ita ut sint in ea Pastores ac Ministri, qui purè & concionentur & sacramenta administrent, sint etiam seniores & Diaconi, qui Ecclesiae senatum constituant; ut his veluti mediis vera Religio conservari, hominesque vitiis dediti spiritualiter corripi, & emendari possint. Tunc enim rite & ordinate omnia fiunt in Ecclesiâ, cum viri fideles & pii ad ejus gubernationem deliguntur, juxta Pauli praescriptum 1 Tim. 3. caeterum ubicunque locorum sint verbi Dei Ministri, eandem atque aequalem omnes habent tum potestatem tum authoritatem: ut qui sint aequè omnes Christi unici illius universalis Episcopi & capitis Ecclesiae Ministri. What hath ever been the opinion of the Church of Scotland about the Divine Right of Presbyterial Government, is so well known, that I need not mention it: also what hath been the judgment of the Presbyterian Ministers of England, both in the National Synod of famous memory, and the Provincial Assembly of London, who have written for the jus divinum of it.
Sect. 10. To this Truth also, the famous Professors of London bear their joint Testimony. Synops. Pur. Theol. Disp. 48. Thes. 23. Nec tamen propterea concedimus à solo aliquo Episcopo, sive Romano, sive Eugobino, ex motu proprio aut plenaria authoritate, ut loquimur, hanc potestatem posse vendicari: sed rectorum ac Presbyterorum Ecclesiae, concilium, totius que adeo Ecclesiae aut apertum, aut tacitum consensum, adhibendum esse; ex praescripto Christi ac purioris Ecclesiae praxi asserimus. And this they prove, Thes. 24. Because that [Tell the Church] cannot be understood of one Bishop. Calvin is clear for us; for he maketh the Officers of the Church to be by Christs Institution; and sheweth who they are that he hath Instituted. Instit. lib. 4. c. 3. sect. 4. Also, c. 4. sect. 1. He sheweth how in the Primitive Church, they studied carefully to adhere to God's Institution in the Government of the Church. And on Phil. 1. 1. reproving the Usurpation of Bishops, he saith, Perinde ac si non omnes Presbyteri Collegae essent ad eandem vocati functionem, unus sibi, praetextu novae appellationis dominium in alios arripuit.
Sect. 11. I close with a short Answer (such as it deserveth) to his last Assault; which is p. 416. If Prudence must be used in setling Church-Government, as he saith is confessed by Independents in their Elective Synods: by Presbyterians in their subordination of Courts, Classical-Assemblies: Episcopal Men in several things. Ans. All this is nothing of the particular Form of Government, Parity or imparity, and so nothing to the purpose. We absolutely deny that That is to be setled by Prudence; but by the Institution of Christ; though many Circumstances in Government must be determined by Prudence, guided by Scripture-light. For his advice in order to Peace, it containeth many good things; yet cannot we fully close with it, till he establish on better grounds than we have yet seen, the Basis of it, viz. The indifferency of the particular Form of Church-Government.
FINIS.
An Advertisement of several Books lately Printed, and sold by Richard Janeway.
MOral Reflections on the number of the Elect, plainly proving from Scripture-Evidence, &c. That not one of an hundred Thousand (nay probably not one of a Million) from Adam down to our days, shall be saved. Price 6 d.
An Appeal of all the Nonconformists in England, to God and all the Protestants of Europe, in order to manifest their Sincerity in Point of Obedience to God, and the King. To which is added a Sober and unpassionate Reply to the Author of The Lively Picture of Lewis Dumonlin, both written by Dr. L. Du Moulin, late History-Professor of Oxford. Price 6 d.
The last Speeches of Mr. John Kid, and Mr. John King, the two Ministers that were Executed at Edenburgh the 14th of August 1679. Price 6 d.
A Letter to a Friend about the Proclamation for Proroguing the Parliament to November 1680.
A Catalogue of the Names of all the Martyrs that were Executed in Queen Maries days, with the particular Time when, and Places where. Price 2 d.
End of the text · Gilbert Rule, Answer to Stillingfleets Irenicum (1680)