A Weapon-Salve for the Churchs Wounds, Religious treatise 1 · Part 2 · Chapter 4

A Weapon-Salve for the Churchs Wounds · Religious treatise 1 · Part 2 · Chapter 4

p. 175CHAP. IV.

Whether Christ hath determined the form of Government by any positive Laws. Arguments of the necessity why Christ must determine it, largely answered; as First, Christs faithfulness compared with Moses, answered, and retorted; and proved, that Christ did not institute any form of Church Government, because no such Law for it as Moses gave; and we have nothing but general Rules, which are applyable to several forms of Government. The office of Timothy and Titus, what it proves in order to this question: the lawfulnesse of Episcopacy shewn thence, but not the necessity. A particular form, how far necessary, as Christ was the Governour of his Church; the similitudes the Church is set out by, prove not the thing in question. Nor the difference of Civil and Church Government; nor Christ setting Officers in his Church; nor the inconvenience of the Churches power in appointing new Officers. Every Minister hath a power respecting the Church in common, which the Church may restrain. Episco…acy thence proved lawfull, the argument from the Scriptures perfection answered.

VVE come then from the Type to the Antitype, from§. 1. the Rod of Aaron to the Root of Iess… ▪ from the Pattern p. 176of the Jewish Church, to the Founder of the Christian: To see whether our Lord & Saviour hath determined this controversie, or any one form of government for his Church, by any universally binding act or Law of his. And here it is pleaded more hotly by many that Christ must do it, than that he hath done it. And therefore I shall first examine the pretences of the necessity of Christs determining the particular form; and then the arguments that are brought that he hath done it. The main pleas that there must be a perfect form of Churchgovernment laid down by Christ for the Church of God, are from the comparison of Christ with Moses, from the equal necessity of forms of Government now which there is for other Heb. 1. 2, 5, 6.Heb 1:2Heb 1:5Heb 1:6Societies, from the perfection and sufficiency of the Scriptures; all other arguments are reducible to these three Heads. Of these in their order.

First, From the comparison of Christ with Moses, they argueArg. 1. thus: If Moses was faithfull in his house as a servant, much more Christ as a Son; now Moses appointed a particular form of Government for the Church under the old Testament; therefore Christ did certainly lay down a form of Church Government for the New Testament.

To this I answer: first, Faithfulnesse implyes the dischargeAnsw. 1. of a trust reposed in one by another: so that it is said vers. 2. he was faithful to him that appointed him: Christs faithfulnesse then lay in discharging the Work which his Father laid upon him, which was the Work of mediation between God and us; and therefore the comparison is here Instituted between Moses as typical Mediator, and Christ as the true Mediator; that as Moses was faithfull in his Work, so was Christ in his. Now Moses his faithfulnesse lay in keeping close to the Pattern received in the Mount, that is, observing the commands of God; Now therefore if Christs being faithfull in his office, doth imply the setling any one form of Goverment in the Church, it must be made appear that the serling of this form was part of Christs Mediatory Work, and that which the Father commanded him to do as Mediator▪ and that Christ received such a form from the Father for the Christian Church, as Moses did for the Jewish. To this it is said, That the Government is laid upon Christs shoulders, and all p. 177power in his hands; and therefore it belongs to him as Mediatour.Isa. 9. 6. Matth 28. 18.Isa 9:6Matt 28:18 Christ I grant is the King of the Church, and doth govern it outwardly by his Laws, and inwardly by the conduct of his Spirit: but shall we say, that therefore any one form of Government is necessary, which is neither contained in his Laws, nor dictated by his Spirit? the main original of mistakes here, is, the confounding the external and internal Government of the Church of Christ, and thence whensoever men read of Christs power, authority and government, they fancy it refers to the outward Government of the Church of God, which is intended of his internal Mediatory power over the hearts and consciences of men. But withall I acknowledge, that Christ for the better government of his Church and people, hath appointed Officers in his Church, invested them by vertue of his own power with an authority to preach and baptize, and administer all Gospel-Ordinances in his own Name,Matth. 28. 18. 19.Matt 28:18Matt 28:19 that is, by his authority, for it is clearly made known to us in the Word of God, that Christ hath appointed these things. But then, whether any shall succeed the Apostles in superiority of power over Presbyters, or all remain governing the Church in an equality of power, is nowhere determined by the Will of Christ in Scripture, which contains his Royal Law: and therefore we have no reason to look upon it as any thing flowing from the power and authority of Christ as Mediator; and so not necessarily binding Christians.

Secondly, I answer; If the correspondency between Christ§ 2. and Moses in their work, doth imply an equal exactnesse in Christs disposing of every thing in his Church, as Moses did among the Jews; then the Church of Christ must be equally bound to all circumstances of Worship as the Jews were. For there was nothing appertaining in the least to the Worship of God, but was fully set down even to the pins of the Tabernacle in the Law of Moses; but we find no such thing in the Gospel. The main Duties and Ordinances are prescribed indeed, but their circumstances and manner of performance are left as matters of Christian-liberty, and only couched under some general Rules: which is a great difference between the legal and Gospel-state. Under the Law all Ceremonies and Circumstances are exactly prescribed: but in the p. 178Gospel we read of some general Rules of direction for Christians carriage in all circumstantial things. These four especially contain all the directions of Scripture concerning Circumstantials.1 Cor. 14. 40.1 Cor 14:40 All things to be done decently and in order. All to be done for edification. Give no offence. Do all to the glory 1 Cor. 14. 26.1 Cor 14:26of God. So that the particular circumstances are left to Christian-liberty with the observation of general Rules. It is evident1 Cor. 10. 32.1 Cor 10:32 as to Baptism and the Lords Supper, which are unquestionably1 Cor. 10. 31.1 Cor 10:31 of divine Institution, yet as to the circumstances of the administration of them, how much lesse circumstantial is ChristRom. 14. 6, 7.Rom 14:6Rom 14:7 then Moses was! As to circumcision and the pass-over under the Law, the age, time, persons, manner, place, form, all fully set down; but nothing so under the Gospel: Whether Baptism shall be administred to Infants or no, is not set down in expresse words, but left to be gathered by Analogy and consequences; what manner it shall be administred in, whether by dipping or sprinkling, is not absolutely determined; what form of words to be used, whether in the name of all three persons, or sometimes in the Name of Christ only, as in the ActsActs 2. 38. 8. 12, 19, 5.Acts 2:38Acts 2:8Acts 2:12Acts 2:19Acts 2:5 we read (if that be the sense, and not rather in Christs Name, i. e. by Christs authority). Whether▪sprinkling or dipping shall be thrice as some Churches use it, or only once as others. These things we see relating to an Ordinance of Divine Institution, are yet past over without any expresse command determining either way in Scripture. So as to the Lords Supper; What persons to be admitted to it, whether all visible professors, or only sincere Christians: upon what terms, whether by previous examination of Church-officers, or by an open profession of their faith, or else only by their own tryal of themselves, required of them as their duty by their Ministers; whether it should be alwayes after Supper as Christ himself did it; whether taking fasting, or after meat; whether kneeling, or sitting, or leaning? Whether to be consecrated in one form of words, or several? These things are not thought fit to be▪determined by any positive command of Christ, but left to the exercise of Christian-liberty; the like is as to preaching the Word, publike Prayer, singing of Psalmes; the duties are required, but the particular Modes are left undetermined. The case is the same as to Church-governwent. That the p. 179Church be governed, and that it be governed by its proper Officers, are things of Divine appointment: but whether the Church should be governed by many joyning together in an equality, or by Subordination of some persons to others, is left to the same liberty which all other Circumstances are; this being not the Substance of the thing it self, but onelyonly the manner of performance of it.

3. I answer, That there is a manifest disparity between the§. 3. Gospel and Jewish state: and therefore Reasons may be given why all Punctilioes were determined then which are not now: as

1. The perfection and liberty of the Gospel-state above the Jewish. The Law was onelyonly as a Paedagogy, the Church then in her Infancy and Nonage, and therefore wanted the Fescues of Ceremonies to direct her, and every part of her lesson set her, to bring her by degrees to skill and exactness in her Understanding the mystery of the things represented to her. But must the Church now grown up under Christ be still sub ferula, and not dare to vary in any Circumstance, which doth not concern the thing it self! A Boy at School hath his Lesson set him, and the manner of learning it prescribed him in every mode and circumstance. But at the University hath his Lectures read him, and his work set, and general Directions given, but he is left to his own liberty how to perform his work, and what manner to use in the doing of it. So it was with the Church under age: Every mode and circumstance was Determined; but when the fulnesse of Time was come, the Church then being grown up, the main Offices themselves were appointed, and generall Directions given; but a liberty left how to apply and make use of them, as to every particular case and occasion. Things Morall remain still in their full force, but circumstantials are left more at liberty by the Gospel-liberty; as a Son that is taught by his Father, while he is under his instruction, must observe every particular direction for him in his Learning: but when he comes to age, though he observes not those things as formerly, yet his Son▪ship continues, and he must obey his Father as a Childe still, though not in the same manner. The similitude is the Apostles, Galat. 4. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5. 10. which p. 180he there largely amplifies to this very purpose of freeing Christians from Judaical ceremonies.

2. The Form of Government among the Jewes in the tribe of Levi, was agreeable to the Form of Government among the other Tribes; and so Moses was not more exact in Reference to that, then to any other; and those persons in that Tribe who were the chief before the Institution of the A…ronicall Priest-hood, were so after; but now under the Gospel, people are not under the same Restrictions for civil Government by a Judicial Law, as they were then. For the Form of Ecclesiastical Government then took place among them as one of their Judicial Laws; And therefore if the Argument hold, Christ must as well Prescribe a Form for civil Government as Ecclesiastical; if Christ in the Gospel must by his Faithfulnesse follow the Pattern of Moses. But if Christ be not bound to follow Moses Pattern as to Judicial Law, for his Church and People; neither is he as to a Form of Ecclesiastical Government, because that was a part of their Civil and Judicial Law.

3. The people of the Jewes was a whole and entire people, subsisting by themselves when one set Form of Government was prescribed them; but it is otherwise now under the Gospel. The Church of Christ was but Forming in Christs own time, nor the Apostles, in whose time we reade of but some Cities and no whole Nations converted to the Faith; and therefore the same Form of Government would not serve a Church in its first constitution, which is necessary for it when it is actually formed. A Pastour and Deacons might serve the Church of a City while believers were few, but cannot when they are increased into many Congregations. And so proportionably when the Church is enlarged to a whole Nation, there must be another Form of Government then. Therefore they who call for a National Church under the Gospel, let them first shew a Nation Converted to the Faith, and we will undertake to shew the other. And this is the chief Reason why the Churches Polity is so little described in the New Testament, because it was onelyonly growing then: and it doth not stand to Reason, that the coat which was cut out for one in his Infancy, must of necessity serve him when p. 181grown a man; which is the argument of those who will have nothing observed in the Church, but what is expressed in Scripture. The Apostles looked at the present state of a Church in appointing Officers, and ordered things according to the circumstances of them, which was necessary to be done in the founding of a Church; and the reason of Apostolical practice binds still, though not the individual action, that as they Regulated Churches for the best conveniency of Governing them, so should the Pastours of Churches now. But of this largely afterwards.

4. Another difference is, that the People of the Jewes lived all under one civil Government; but it is otherwise with Christians who live under different Forms of civil Government. And then by the same reason that in the first institution of their Ecclesiastical Government it was formed according to the civil, by the same reason, must Christians doe under the Gospel, if the argument holds that Christ must be faithful as Moses was. And then because Christians do live under several and distinct Forms of civil Government, they must be bound by the Law of Christ, to contemperate the Government of the Church to that of the State. And what they have gained by this for their cause, who assert the necessity of any one Form from this Argument, I see not; but on the contrary this is evident, that they have evidently destroyed their own principle by it. For if Moses did prescribe a Form of Government for Levi agreeable to the Form of the Common-wealth, and Christ be as faithfull as Moses was, then Christ must likewise order the Government of Christian Churches, according to that of the State, and so must have different Forms as the other hath. Thus much will serve abundantly to shew the weakness of the argument drawn from the agreement of Christ and Moses, for the proving any one form of Government necessary; but this shall not suffice. I now shall ex abundanti from the answers to this argument, lay down several arguments that Christ did never intend to institute any one Form of Government in his Church.

1. Whatever binds the Church of God as an institution of§ 4. Christ, must bind as an universal standing Law; but one form of Government in the Church cannot bind it as a standing p. 182Law. For whatever binds as a standing …aw, must either be expressed in direct terms as such a Law; or deduced by a necessary Consequence from his Lawes, as of an universally binding Nature; but any one particular form of Government in the Church, is neither expressed in any direct terms by Christ, nor can be deduced by just Consequence; therefore no such form of Government is instituted by Christ. If there be any such Law, it must be produced, whereby it is determined in Scripture, either that there must be Superiority or Equality among Church Officers, as such, after the Apostles decease. And though the Negative of a Fact holds not, yet the Negative of a Law doth, else no superstition. I have not yet met with any such produced, and therefore shall see what consequences can be made of a binding Nature. To this I say, that no consequences can be deduced to make an institution, but onelyonly to apply one to particular Cases: because Positives are in themselves indifferent without Institution and Divine appointment; and therefore that must be directly brought for the making a Positive universally binding, which it doth not in its own Nature do. Now here must be an Institution of something meerly Positive supposed, which in its self is of an indifferent Nature; and therefore no consequence drawn can suffice to make it unalterably binding, without express Declaration that such a thing shall so bind; for what is not in its own Nature moral, binds only by vertue of a command, which command must be made known by the Will of Christ, so that we may understand its Obligatory nature. So that both a consequence must be necessarily drawn, and the Obligation of what shall be so drawn must be expressed in Scripture: which I despair of ever finding in reference to any one Form of Government in the Church.

2. If the standing Laws for Church-Government be equally applyable to several distinct Forms, then no one Form is prescribed in Scripture; but all the standing Lawes respecting Church-Government, are equally applyable to several Forms: All the Lawes occurring in Scripture respecting Church Government, may be referred to these three heads. Such as set down the Qualifications of the Persons for the Office of Government, such as require a right management of their Office, and p. 183such as lay down Rules for the management of their Office. Now all these are equally applyable to either of these two forms we now discourse of. We begin then with those which set down the qualifications of persons employed in Government, those we have largely and fully set down by St. Paul in his Order to1 Tim. 3. 1. to the 8.1 Tim 3:1 Timothy and Titus, prescribing what manner of persons thoseTitus 1. 5. to the 10.Titus 1:5 should be who are to be employed in the Government of the Church. A Bishop must be blamelesse as the Steward of God, not self-willed, not soon angry, not given to wine, no striker, &c. All these, and the rest of the Qualifications mentioned, are equally required as necessary in a Bishop, whether taken for one of a Superiour Order above Presbyters, or else only for a single Presbyter; however that be, if he hath a hand in Churchgovernment, he must be such a one as the Apostle prescribes; And so these commands to Timothy and Titus given by Paul, do equally respect and concern them, whether we consider them as Evangelists acting by an extraordinary Commission, or as fixed Pastors over all the Churches in their several precincts; so that from the Commands themselves nothing can be inferred either way to determine the Question; only one place is pleaded for the perpetuity of the Office Timothy was employed in, which must now be examined: The place is 1 Tim. 6. 13, 14. I give thee charge in the sight of God, &c. that thou keep this commandement without spot, unrebukable, untill the appearing of our Lord Iesus Christ. From hence it is argued thus: The Commandment here was the Charge which Timothy had of governing the Church; this Timothy could not keep personally till Christs second coming; therefore there must be a Succession of Officers in the same kind till the second coming of Christ. But this is easily answered. For first, it is no wayes certain what this Command was which St. Paul speaks of; Some understand it of fighting the good fight of Faith, others of the precept of Love, others most probably the sum of all contained in this Epistle, which I confesse implies in it (as being one great part of the Epistle) Pauls direction of Timothy for the right discharging of his Office; but, granting that the command respects Timothy's Office, yet I answer, Secondly, It manifestly appears to be something personal, and not successive; or at least nothing can be inferr'd p. 184for the necessity of such a Succession from this place which it was brought for: Nothing being more evident then that this command related to Timothy's personal observance of it. And therefore thirdly, Christs appearing here, is not meant of his second coming to judgement, but it only imports theHom. 18. in 1 Tim. To. 4. time of Timothy's decease; So Chrysostome, foreign. So Estius understands it, usque ad exitum vitae; Epistol. 80. …ad Hesych.and for that end brings that Speech of Augustine, Tun… unicuique veniet dies adventûs Domini, cum venerit ei dies, ut talis hinc exeat, qualis▪judicandus est illo die. And the reason why the time of his death is set out by the coming of Christ, is, foreign, as Chrysostome, and from him Theophylact observes, to incite him the more, both to diligence in his work and patience under sufferings, from the consideration of Christs appearance. The plain meaning of the words then is the same with that, Revel. 2. 10. Be thou faithful unto death, and I will give thee a Crown of life. Nothing then can be hence inferred as to the necessary succession of some in Timothy's Office, whatever it is supposed to be.

Secondly, The precepts of the Gospel requiring a right§. 5. management of the work, are equally applyable to either form. Taking heed to the flock over which God hath made them overseers, is equally a duty; whether by flock we understand either the particular Church of Ephesus, or the adjacent Churches of Asia; Whether by Overseers we understand some acting over others, or all joyning together in an equality. So exhorting, reproving, preaching in season and out of season, doing Acts 20. 28.Acts 20:28all things foreign, without rash censures and partiality; 2 Tim. 4. 2.2 Tim 4:2watching over the flock as they that must give an account: 1 Tim. 5. 21.1 Tim 5:21Laying hands suddenly on no man: rebuking not an Elder, but under two or three witnesses. And whatever preceptsHeb. 13. 17.Heb 13:17 of this nature we read in the Epistles of Timothy and Titus, 1 Tim. 5. 22.1 Tim 5:22may be equally applyable to men acting in either of these two forms of Government: There being no precept occurring1 Tim. 5. 19.1 Tim 5:19 in all those Epistles prescribing to Timothy, whether he must act only as a Consul in Senatu with the consent of the Presbytery, or whether by his sole power he should determine what was the common interest, and concern of those Churches he was the Superintendent over. Neither doth p. 185the Apostle determine at all in those Epistles chiefly concerning Church-government, whether upon the removal of Timothy or Titus thence as Evangelists, as some pretend, or upon their death as fixed Pastors and Bishops, as others, any should succeed them in the power they enjoyed, or no: nor in what manner the Pastors of the several Churches should order things of common concernment, Which would seem to be a strange omission, were either of these two forms so necessary, taken exclusively of the other, as both parties seem to affirm. For we cannot conceive but if the being and right constitution of a Church did depend upon the manner of the Governours acting in it, but that care which Paul had over all the Churches would have prompted him (especially being assisted and guided by an infallible Spirit in the penning those Epistles) to have laid down some certain Rules for the acting of the Pastors of the Churches after the departure of Timothy and Titus. Considering especially that the Epistles then written by him, were to be of standing perpetual use in the Church of God; and by which the Churches in after-ages were to be guided as well as those that were then in being. The Apostle in both Epistles takes care for a succession of Pastors in those Churches: Timothy is charged to commit the things he had 2 Tim. 2. 2.2 Tim 2:2heard of Paul to faithful men; who shall be fit to teach others. Had it not been as requisite to have charged him to have committed his power of Government to men fit for that, had the Apostles looked on the form of Government to be as necessary as the office of preaching? Paul saith, he left Titus in Creete on purpose to settle the Churches and ordain Presbyters Titus 1. 5.Titus 1:5in every City: had it not been as necessary to have shewed in what order the Churches must be setled, and what power did belong to those Presbyters, and how they should act in the governing their Churches, had he thought the constitution of the Churches did depend upon the form of their acting? We see here then, that St. Paul doth not expresse any thing necessarily inferring any one constant form to be used in the Church of God, And whence can we inferr any necessity of it, but from the Scriptures laying it down as a duty that such a form and no other there must be used in the Church of God? For all that we can see then by Pauls direction for Church-Government, p. 186(when if ever, this should have been expressed) it was left to the Christian wisdome and prudence of the Churches of Ephesus and Creet to consult and determine in what manner the government of their Churches should be provided for, upon the departure of Timothy and Titus from them.

But here it will be soon replyed, That though nothing be§. 6. expressed in Pauls Epistles to Timothy and Titus, yet Pauls appointing Timothy and Titus over those Churches, did determine the form of Government, and they were entrusted with a power to provide for future Governours after them.

To this …answer: First, The superiority which Timothy and Titus had over those Churches, doth not prove that form of Government necessary in all Churches; I dispute not whether they were Evangelists or no, or acted as such in that Superiority (of that afterwards) it is evident they might be so; there being no convincing argument to the contrary. And the bare possibility of the truth of the Negative, destroys the necessity of the Affirmative of a Proposition. As, Si posibile est, hominem non esse animal, then that Proposition is false, Necesse est hominem esse animal. For, Necesse est esse, and Non possibile est non esse, being …quipollents on the one side; and Possibile est non esse, Et non necesse est esse, being …quipollents on the other; Possibile est non esse, must be contradictory to Necesse est esse, as Non possibile est non esse, is to Non necesse est esse. So that if only the possibility of their acting as Evangelists, that is, by an extraordinary Commission, be evicted, which I know none will deny; the necessity of their acting as fixed Bishops is destroyed, and consequently the necessity of the continuance of their office too, which depends upon the former. For if they acted not as Bishops, nothing can be drawn from their example necessarily inforcing the continuance of the Superiority which they enjoyed. But though nothing can be inferred from hence as to the necessity of that office to continue in the Church, which Timothy and Titus were invested in; yet from the Superiority of that power which they enjoyed over those Churches, whether as Evangelists, or as fixed Bishops, These two things may be inferred. First, That the superiority of some Church-Officers over others, is p. 187not contrary to the Rule of the Gospel: for all parties acknowledge the superiority of their power above the Presbyters of the several Cityes; only the continuance of this power … disputed by many. But if they had any such power at all, it is enough for my present design, viz. that such a superiority is not contrary to the Gospel-Rule: or that the nature of the Government of the Church doth not imply a necessary equality among the Governours of it. Secondly, Hence I infer, that it is not repugnant to the constitution of Churches in Apostolical times, for men to have power over more than one particular Congregation. For such a power Timothy and Titus had, which had it been contrary to the nature of the regiment of Churches, we should never have read of in the first planted Churches. So that if those popular arguments of a necessary relation between a Pastor and particular people, of personal knowledge, care and inspection, did destroy the lawfulnesse of extending that care and charge to many particular Congregations, they would likewise overthrow the nature, end and design of the office which Timothy and Titus acted in: which had a relation to a multitude of particular and Congregational Churches. Whether their power was extraordinary or no, I now dispute not; but whether such a power be repugnant to the Gospel or no; which from their practice is evident that it is not. But then others who would make this office necessary, urge further, that Timothy or Titus might ordain and appoint others to succeed them in their places and care over all those Churches under their charge. To which I answer, First, What they might do is not the question, but what they did, as they might do it; so they might not do it, if no other evidence be brought to prove it: for, Quod possibile est esse, possibile …st non esse. Secondly, Neither what they did, is the whole question, but what they did with an opinion of the necessity of doing it, whether they were bound to do it or no? and if so, whether by any Law extant in Scripture, and given them by Paul in his Epistles, or some private command and particular instructions when he deputed them to their several charges: If the former, that Law and command must be produced, which will hardly be, if we embrace only the received Canon of the Scripture. If the latter▪ we must p. 188then fetch some standing Rule and Law from unwritten Traditions: for no other evidence can be given of the Instructions by word of mouth, given by Paul to Timothy and Titus at the taking their charges upon them. But yet Thirdly, Were it only the matter of fact that was disputed, that would hold a Controversie still, viz. Whether any did succeed Timothy and Titus in their Offices: but this I shall leave to its proper place to be discussed, when I come to examine the argument from Apostolical Succession. Thus we see then that neither the qualification of the persons, nor the commands for a right exercise of the office committed to them, nor the whole Epistles to Timothy and Titus, do determine any one form of Government to be necessary in the Church of God.

Thirdly, Let us see whether the general Rules do require§. 7. any one form; which rules in that they are general, can determine nothing of the authority it self as to its particular mode, being intended only for the regulation of the exercise of the authority in which men are placed. And it is an evidence that nothing is particularly determined in this case, when the Spirit of God only lays down such Rules for government which are applyable to distinct forms. Otherwise, certainly some Rule would have been laid down, which couldHeb. 5. 2. Rom. 10. 14.Heb 5:2Rom 10:14 have been applyed to nothing but to that one form. That none take the office of preaching without a Call, nor go without sending, will equally hold whether the power of Ordination lye in a Bishop with Presbyters, or in Presbyters acting with equality of power, That offenders be censured, and complaints made to the Church in case of scandal, determines nothing to whom the power of Jurisdiction doth solely belong, nor what that Church is which must receive these complaints. That all things be done with decency and order, doth prescribe nothing wherein that Decency lyes, nor how far that Order may extend; nor yet who must be the Judges of that Decency and Order. That all be done for edification, and the common benefit of the Church, doth no wayes restrain his Churches freedom in disposing of its self as to the form of its government, so the aym of the Church be for the better edification of the body of the Church, and to promote the benefit of it. But p. 189methinks, these general Orders and Rules for Discipline do imply the particular manner of government to be left at liberty to the Church of God, so that in all the several forms these general Rules be observed. Whereas had Christ appointed a superiour Order to govern other subordinate Officers and the Church together; Christs command for governing the Church would have been particularly addressed to them: and again, had it been the will of Christ there should be no superior Order above the Pastours of particular Churches, there would have been some expresse and direct prohibition of it; which because we no where read; it seems evident that Christ hath left both the one and the other to the freedom and liberty of his Church. So much shall serve in this place, to shew how improbable it is that Christ did ever prescribe any one form of Government in his Church, since he hath only laid down general Rules for the management of Church government.

But this will not yet suffice those, who plead that Christ§. 8. must determine one immutable form of Government in his Church: but although it be a high presumption to determine first what Christ must do, before we examine what he hath done, yet we shall still proceed and examine all the pretences that are brought for this opinion. The next thing then which is generally urged for it, is, the equal necessity of Christs instituting a certain form as for any other Legislator who models a Common-wealth. Now for answer to this, I say first, That Christ hath instituted such an immutable government in his Church, as is sufficient for the succession and continuance of it, which is all which Founders of Common-wealths do look after, viz. that there be such an Order and distinction of persons, and subordination of one to the other, that a Society may still be preserved among them; now this is sufficiently provided for by Christs appointing Officers continually to rule his Church, and establishing Laws for the perpetuating of such Officers; so whatsoever is necessary in order to the general ends of Government is acknowledged to be appointed by Jesus Christ. Untill then that it be proved that one form of government is in it self absolutely necessary for the being of a Church, this argument can prove nothing▪ for what is drawn from necessity, p. 190will prove nothing but in a case of necessity. Secondly, I answer, That those things which are not absolutely necessary to the being of a Church, are left to Christs liberty, whether he will determine them or no; and are no further to be looked on as necessary then as he hath determined by his Laws whether they shall be or no, in his Church. The thing will be thus cleared. When I read that Zaleucus, Lycurgus, or Numa, did form a Common-wealth and make Laws for it; I presently conclude that there must be some order or distinction of persons in this Common wealth; and some rules whereby persons must be governed, and whereby others must Rule: But I cannot hence inferr that Zaleucus, or Lycurgus did institute Monarchical, Aristocratical, or Democratical Government, because any of these forms might be agreeable to their design; and therefore what kind of government they did appoint, can no otherwise be known then by taking a view of the Laws which they made in order thereto. So it is in reference to Christ, when we read that Christ hath instituted a Church alwayes to continue in the World, we presently apprehend that there must be some power and order in the members of that Society, and Laws for the governing it: but we cannot hence gather that he hath bound up his Officers to act in any one form, because several forms might in themselves equally tend to the promoting the end of Government in his Church. And therefore what Christ hath expresly determined in his positive Laws, must be our Rule of judging in this case, and not any presumption of our own, that such a form was necessary, and therefore Christ must institute andEcclesiast. Polity lib. 3. sect. 11. appoint it, Which is fully expressed by judicious Mr. Hooker, whose words will serve as a sufficient answer to this Objection. As for those marvellous Discourses, whereby they adventure to argue, that God must needs have done the thing which they imagine was to be done; I must confesse, I have often wondred at their exceeding boldnesse herein. When the question is, Whether God have delivered in Scripture (as they affirm he hath) a compleat particular immutable form of Church-Polity: why take they that other, both presumptuous and superfluous labour, to prove he should have done it: there being no way in this case to prove the deed of God, saving only by producing that evidence wherein he p. 191hath done it? But if there be no such thing apparent upon record, they do as if one should demand a Legacy, by force and vertue of some written Testament, wherein there being no such thing specified, he pleadeth that there it must needs be, and bringeth arguments from the Love and good will which alwayes the Testator bore, imagining that these or the like proofs will convict a Testament to have that in it, which other men can no where by reading find. In matters which concern the actions of God, the most dutiful way on our part, is, to search what God hath done, and with meekness to admire that, rather then to dispute what he in congru…ty of reason ought to do. Thus he, with more to the same purpose. The sum then of the answer to this Argument, is this, That nothing can be inferred of what Christ must do, from his relation to his Church, but what is absolutely necessary to the being of it; as for all other things, they being arbitrary constitutions, we can judge no more of the necessity of them, then as we find them clearly revealed in the Word of God. And therefore the Plea must be removed from what Christ must do, to what he hath done, in order to the determining the particular form of Government in his Church.

But still it is argued for the necessity of a particular form§. 9. of Government in the Church from the similitudes the Church is set out by in Scripture; It is called a Vine, and therefore Parker de Polit. Eccles. lib. 2. c. 40.must have Keepers: an House, and therefore must have Government; a City, and therefore must have a Polity; a Body, and therefore must have Parts. I answer, First, All these Similitudes prove only that which none deny, that there must be Order, Power, and Government in the Church of God; we take not away the Keepers from the Vine, nor the Government from▪ the House, nor Polity from the City, nor distinction of parts from the Body; we assert all these things as necessary in the Church of God. The keepers of the Vine to defend and prune it; the Governours of the House to rule and order it; the Polity of the City to guide and direct it; the parts of the Body to compleat and adorn it. But Secondly; None of these Similitudes prove what they are brought for; viz. that any one immutable form of Government is determined. For may not the Keepers of the Vine use their own p. 192discretion in looking to it, so the flourishing of the Vine be that they aym at? and if there be many of them, may there not be different orders among them, and some as Supervisors of the others work? The House must have Governours; but those that are so, are entrusted with the power of ordering things in the House according to their own discretion; and where there is a multitude, is there not diversity of Offices among them? and is it necessary that every House must have Offices of the same kind? In great and large Families there must be more particular distinct Orders and Offices, than in a small and little one. The City must have its Polity; but all Cities have not the like; some have one form, and some another, and yet there is a City still and a Polity too. A body must have all its parts; but are all the parts of the body equal one to another? it sufficeth that there be a proportion, though not equality in them: the several parts of the body have their several offices, and yet we see the head is superintendent over them all: and thus if we make every particular Church a Body, yet it follows not that the form of cloathing that Body must alwayes be the same▪ for the manner of Government is rather the cloathing to the Body than the parts of it, the Governours indeed are parts of the Body; but their manner of governing is not, that may alter according to the proportion and growth of the Body, and its fashion change for better conveniency.

But if these Similitudes prove nothing; yet certainly, say§. 10. they, the difference as to Civil and Ecclesiastical Government will; for though there may be different forms in civil Government, which are therefore call'd an Ordinance of man; yet there must be but one in Church-Government, which is an Ordinance of God, … Pet. 2. 13.and Christ hath appointed Officers to rule it. I answer, first, We grant and acknowledge a difference between the Church and the Common-wealth, they are constituted for other ends; the one Political, the other Spiritual; one temporal, the other eternal; they subsist by different Charters; the one given to men as men, the other to men as Christians: They act upon different principles; the one to preserve civil Rights, the other to promote an eternal Interest; nay, their formal constitution is different; for a man by being a member of a Common-wealth p. 193doth not become a Member of the Church, and by being excommunicated out of the Church▪ doth not cease to be a Member of the Common-wealth: The Officers of the one are clearly distinct from the other, the one deriving their power from the Law of Christ, the other from Gods general Providence: the Magistrate hath no power to Excommunicate formally out of the Church any more then to admit into it, nor have the Church-officers any power to cast men out of the common-wealth. We see then there is a difference between Civil and Ecclesiastical Government: But then I answer, Secondly, The power of the Magistrate is not therefore called an Ordinance of man, because of the mutability of its Form, and as distinguished from the Form of Church-government. For First, The Apostle speaks not of the Form of Government, but of the Power; Submit to every Ordinance of man, &c. the ground of Submission is not the form, but the power of civil government; and therefore there can be no opposition expressed here between the Forms of Civil and Ecclesiastical government: but if any such opposition be, it must be between the powers; and if this be said as to civils, that the power is an Ordinance of Man in that sense, (whereas Paul saith it is of God) yet as to the Church it is freely acknowledgedRom. 13. 1▪Rom 13:1 that the Power is derived from God. Secondly, The civil power is not called foreign, because it is a creature of mans making, and so subject to mens power; but the ground of that Speech is, because all civil power respects men as men, without any further connotation. Humana dicitur, non quod ab hominibus sit excogitata, sed quod hominum sit propria, saith Beza. And to the same purpose Calvin, Humana dicitur Ordinatio, non quod humanitùs inventa fuerit; sed quod propria hominum est digesta & ordinata vivendi ratio. Piscator, Humanam appellat, non quod magistratus homines authores habeat, sed quod Homines eam gerant. So then the civil power is not called an Ordinance of man, as it is of mans setting up, but as it is proper to man; and so if there be any opposition between the civil and Church power, it is onelyonly this, that the one belongs to men as men, the other to men as Christians. Thirdly, Although it be granted that Christ hath appointed and set up his own Officers in his Church; yet p. 194it doth not thence follow that he hath determined in what manner they shall Rule his Church. It is true, Christ hath set up in his Church, some Apostles, some Evangelists, and Eph. 4. 12.Eph 4:12some Pastours and Teachers: but it doth not thence follow, that Christ hath determined, whether the Power of Apostles and Evangelists should continue in his Church or no, as it implied Superiority over the ordinary Pastors of the Churches; nor whether the Pastors of the Church should act in an equality in their Governing Churches. I grant, that all Church-Government must be performed by Officers of Christs appointing; but that which I say is not determined in Scripture, is, the way and manner whereby they shall Govern Churches in common.

It is yet further argued, That if the Form of Church Government §. 11.be not immutably determined in Scripture, then it is in the Parker▪ Polit. Eccles. l. 2. cap. 45. s. c.Sir 50:2Churches Power, to make new Officers which Christ never made, which must be a plain addition to the Lawes of Christ, and must argue the Scripture of Imperfection. This being one of the main Arguments, I have reserved it to the place of the Triarii, and shall now examine what strength there lies in it. To this therefore I answer, First, Those Officers are onelyonly said to be new, which were never appointed by Christ, and are contrary to the first appointments of Christ for the Regulating of his Church; such it is granted the Church hath no power to institute: but if by new Officers be meant onelyonly such as have a charge over more then one particular congregation by the consent of the Pastours themselves; then it is evident, such an Office cannot be said to be new. For, besides the general practice of the Church of God, from the first Primitive times which have all consented in the use of such Officers; we finde the Foundation of this Power laid by Christ himself in the Power which the Apostles were invested in, which was extended over many, both Churches and Pastours. But if it be said, The Apostolical Power being extraordinary, must cease with the persons which enjoyed it: I answer: First, What was extraordinary did cease; but all the Dispute is, what was extraordinary, and what not; some things were ordinary in them, as Preaching, Baptizing, Ordaining, Ruling Churches; some things were again extraordinary, as immediate mission from Christ p. 195(the main distinguishing Note of an Apostle) a Power of working Miracles to confirm the Truth of what they Preached. Now the Question is, whether the power which they enjoyed over Presbyters and Churches, be to be reckoned in the first or the second number. It must therefore be proved to be extraordinary, before it can be said to cease with them, and that must be done by some Arguments proper to their persons; for if the Arguments brought be of a common and moral Nature, it will prove the Office to be so too. Secondly, By ceasing may be meant either ceasing as to its necessity, or ceasing as to its lawfulness: I say not, but that the necessity of the Office, as in their persons, for the first Preaching and propagating the Gospel, did cease with them; but, that after their death it became unlawful for any particular persons to take the care and charge of Diocesan Churches, I deny. For to make a thing unlawfull which was before lawfull, there must be some expresse prohibition forbidding any further use of such a power, which I suppose men will not easily produce in the Word of God.

I answer therefore Secondly, That the extending of any§. 12. Ministerial power, is not the appointing of any New Office; because every Minister of the Gospel hath a Relation in actu primo to the whole Church of God: the restraint and inlargement of which power is subject to Positive Determinations of prudence and conveniency in actu secundo; and therefore if the Church see it fit for some men to have this power enlarged for better government in some, and restrained in others, that inlargement is the appointing no new Office, but the making use of a power already enjoyed for the benefit of the Church of God. This being a Foundation tending so fully to clear the lawfulnesse of that Government in the Church which implies a superiority and subordination of the Officers of the Church to one another: and the Churches using her prudence in ordering the bounds of her Officers, I shall do these two things. First, Shew that the power of every Minister of the Gospel doth primarily and habitually respect the Church in common. Secondly, that the Church may in a peculiar manner single out some of its Officers for the due Administration of Ecclesiastical power. First, that every Minister of the p. 196Gospel hath a power respecting the Church in common: This I find fully and largely proved by those who assert the equality of the power of Ministers; First, from Christs bestowing the several Offices of the Church, for the use of the whole Church, Ephesians, 4. 12, 13. Christ hath set Apostles, &c. Pastours and Teachers in his Church; now this Church must needs be1 Cor. 12. 28, 29.1 Cor 12:281 Cor 12:29 the catholicke visible Church, because indisputably the Apostles Office did relate thereto, and consequently so must that of Pastours and Teachers too: Again, the end of these Offices is the building up the Body of Christ, which cannot otherwise be understood then of his whole Church: else Christ must have as many Bodies as the Church hath partiticular congregations. Which is a new way of Consubstantiation. Secondly, The Ministerial Office was in being before any particular congregations were gathered: For Christ upon his Ascension to Glory gave these Gifts to men; and the ApostlesEph. 4. 8.Eph 4:8 were impowered by Christ before his Ascension, Either thenMatth. 28. 19.Matt 28:19 they were no Church Officers, or if they were so, they could have no other Correlate, but the whole body of the Church of God then lying under the power of Darkness, a few persons excepted. Thirdly, Because the main Designe of appointing a Gospel Ministry was the conversion of Heathens and Infidels: and if these be the proper Object of the Ministerial Function, then the Office must have reference to the whole Church of Christ; else there could be no part of that Office performed towards those who are not yet converted. Fourthly, Else a Minister can perform no office belonging to him as such beyond the bounds of his particular congregation, and so can neither Preach nor Administer the Sacraments to any other but within the Bounds of his own particular place and people. Fifthly, Because Ministers by Baptizing do admit men into the catholike visible Church, (else a man must be baptized again every time he removes from one Church to another) and none can admit beyond what their office doth extend to; therefore it is evident that every particular Pastor of a Church hath a Relation to the whole Church; To which purpose our former observation is of great use; viz. That particular congregations are not of Gods primary intention, but for mens conveniency, and so consequently is the p. 197fixedness of particular Pastors to their several places for the greater conveniency of the Church; every Pastor of a Church then hath a Relation to the whole Church; and that which hinders him from the exercise of this power, is not any unlawfulnesse in the thing, but the preserving of order and conveniency in the Church of God. This being premised, I say, Secondly, That the officers of the Church may in a peculiar manner attribute a larger and more extensive power to some particular persons for the more convenient exercise of their common power. We have seen already that their power extends to the care of the Churches in common, that the restraint of this power is a matter of order and decency in the Church of God; Now in matters of common concernment, without all question it is not unlawful when the Church judgeth it most for Edification, to grant to some the executive part of that power, which is Originally and Fundamentally common to them all. For our better understanding of this, we must consider a twofold power belonging to Church-Officers, a power of Order, and a power of jurisdiction; for in every Presbyter, there are some things inseparably joyned to his Function, and belonging to every one in his personal capacity, both in actu primo, and in actu secundo, both as to the right and power to do it, and the exercise and execution of that power; such are preaching the Word, visiting the sick, administring Sacraments. &c. But there are other things which every Presbyter hath an aptitude, and a jus to, in actu primo, but the limitation and exercise of that power doth belong to the Church in common, and belong not to any one personally, but by a further power of choice or delegation to it, such is the power of visiting Churches, taking care that particular Pastors discharge their duty; such is the power of ordination and Church censures, and making Rules for decency in the Church; this is that we call the power of jurisdiction. Now this latter power, though it belongs habitually and in actu primo to every Presbyter; yet being about matters of publike and common concernment, some further Authority in a Church constituted is necessary, besides the power of order; and when this power, either by consent of the Pastors of the Church, or by the appointment of a Christian Magistrate, p. 198or both, is devolved to some particular persons, though quoad aptitudinem the power remain in every Presbyter, yet quoad executionem it belongs to those who are so appointed. And therefore Camero determins that, Ordinatio non fit à pastore De Ecclesia in Mat. 18. 15. Tom. 1. op. in 40. p. 27.Matt 18:15quatenus pastor est, sed quatenus ad tempus singularem authoritatem obtinet, i. e. That Ordination doth not belong to the Power of Order but to the Power of Jurisdiction, and therefore is subject to Positive restraints, by Prudential Determinations. By this we may understand how lawfull the Exercise of an Episcopal Power may be in the Church of God, supposing an equality in all Church-Officers as to the Power of Order. And how incongruously they speak, who supposing an equality in the Presbyters of Churches at first, do cry out, that the Church takes upon her the Office of Christ, if she delegates any to a more peculiar Exercise of the power of Jurisdiction.

The last thing pleaded why an immutable Form of Church-Government§. 13. must be laid down in Scripture, is, from the perfection and sufficiency of the Scriptures; because otherwise the Scriptures would be condemned of imperfection. But this will receive an easie dispatch: For, First, The Controversie about the perfection of the Scriptures, is not concerning an essential or integral Perfection, but a perfection ratione finis & effectuum in order to its end; now the end of it, is to be anRivet. Isagog. ad Script. sacr. cap. 24. s. 3. adaequate Rule of Faith and Manners, and sufficient to bring men to salvation; which it is sufficiently acknowledged to be, if all things necessary to be believed or practised be contained in the Word of God: now that which we assert not to be fully laid down in Scripture, is not pleaded to be any wayes necessary, nor to be a matter of Faith, but something left to the Churches Liberty; but here it is said by some, that this is adding to the Law of God, which destroyes the Scriptures perfection; therefore I answer: Secondly, Whatever is done with an Opinion of the necessity of doing it, destroyes the Scriptures perfection if it be not contained in it: for that were to make it an imperfect Rule; and in this sense every additio perficiens is additio corrumpens, because it takes away from the perfection of the Rule which it is added to: and thus Popish Traditions are destructive of the Scriptures sufficiency. p. 199But the doing of any thing not positively determined in Scripture, not looking upon it as a thing we are bound to do from the necessity of the thing, and observing the general Rules of Scripture in the doing it, is far from destroying the perfection or sufficiency of the Word of God. Thirdly, All essentials of Church-Government are contained clearly in Scripture: The essentials of Church-Government, are such as are necessary to the preservation of such a Society as the Church is: Now all these things have been not only granted, but proved to be contained in Scripture; but whatever is not so necessary in its self, can only become necessary by vertue of Gods express command; and what is not so commanded, is accidental, and circumstantial, and a matter of Christian liberty, and such we assert the Form of Church-Government to be. It is not our work to enquire, why God hath determined some things that might seem more circumstantial than this, and left other things at liberty; but whether God hath determined these things or no. Which determination being once cleared, makes the thing so commanded necessary as to our observance of it; but if no such thing be made appear, the thing remains a matter of liberty, and so the Scriptures perfection as to necessaries in order to Salvation, is no wayes impeached by it. So much now for the necessity of Christs determining the particular form of Government: We now proceed to the consideration of Christs Actions, whether by them the form of Church-Government is determined or no?