Слике страница
PDF
ePub

Zenuah, was second over the city." He that had but the second place was a ruler, how much more he that was in the first place? Lo, here, the head and chief ruler of the Benjamites called by the name of ἐπίσκοπος. So Num. xxxi. 14; 2 Kings xi. 15, the chief officers of the host, the captains over thousands, and captains over hundreds, are called by the Septuagints érioκοποι τις δυνάμεως. The same Hebrew words which they render by eziakonos, they render in other places by eriorárns, præfectus, poorárns, antistes, roжápуns, præpositus, apxw, ἄρχων, princeps. Yea, the name of God they render by this word, Job xx. 29, "This is the portion of a wicked man from God, and the heritage appointed unto him by God." Пapà тоv ÉTIσkónov, saith the Greek, by the overseer (even as the same name of bishop is given to Christ, 1 Pet. ii. 25). Conradus Kircherus, in the word pakad, tells us also that, Gen. xliv. 34, "Let Pharaoh do this, and let him appoint officers over the land," where the LXX. read rorúpxas, the Greek Scholia, which he useth to cite, hath éioκόπους.

Fourthly, Peter addeth, "not as being lords," or over-ruling, karaкuptevóvres, that we might understand he condemneth the ruling power of the lord bishop, not of the Lord's bishop; of episcopus dominus, not of episcopus Domini. Just as, Ezek. xxxiv. 4, the shepherds of Israel are reproved for lording it over the flock, "With force and with cruelty have ye ruled them." It was their duty to rule them, but it was their sin to rule them with force and with cruelty.

The twentieth argument I take from 1 Cor. iv. 1, 2, "Let a man so account of us, as of the ministers of Christ, and stewards of the mysteries of God. Moreover, it is required in stewards, that a man be found faithful." And Tit. i. 7, a bishop is "the steward of God,” Θεοῦ οἰκονόμος. This name doth exclude lordship and dominion, but withal it noteth a ministerial rule or government, as in the proper, so in the metaphorical signification: oikorópos is a name divers times given by Aristotle, in his Politics, to the civil magistrate. The Septuagints have oikorópot as synonymous with στρατηγοί, σατράπαι, τοπάρχαι : Esth. viii. 9," To the lieutenants and the deputies." The LXX. thus, Τοις οἰκονόμοις καὶ τῆις apxovo. The Holy Ghost, by the same word, expresseth government, Gal. iv. 2, ὑπὸ ἐπιτρόπους ἐστὶ καὶ οἰκονόμους, “is under

tutors and governors." Rom. xvi. 23, Erastus is called ὁ οἰκονόμος τῆς πόλεως. Theophylact thinks he was governor of the city; Erasmus, that he was præfectus ærario, town-treasurer. The English translators call him "the chamberlain of the city." Yea, setting aside the metaphorical signification of this name, often used for a name of rule, the very literal and native signification of the word will serve to strengthen this argument in hand. Ministers are oikovóμoi, that is, house-stewards, or over the house. But what house? Aristotle, at the beginning of the second book of his Economics, distinguisheth a fourfold economy, Baridikų, oaτραπικὴ, πολιτικὴ, ιδιωτική : kingly, noble, civil, private. The ministers of Christ are oikovóμo of the first sort. They are stewards in the house of the Great King. He that is steward in a king's house, must needs have a ruling power in the house; 1 Kings iv. 6, Abishar was over Solomon's household; 1 Kings xviii. 3, " And Ahab called Obadiah, which was the governor of his house;" 2 Kings xviii. 18, "Eliakim, which was over the household;" in all which places the LXX. have oikovópos. I hold, therefore, with Peter Martyr upon 1 Cor. iv. 1, that ministers being, by their calling and office, stewards in the house of God, ought to cast out profane impure persons out of the house, and receive them again upon their repentance.1 And why are they called "stewards of the mysteries of God?" Surely the sacraments are part (and a chief part) of those mysteries, and Christ hath made his ministers (not the civil magistrates) stewards of these mysteries, to receive unto, or to exclude from the sacraments; and as they may not keep back any of the children of the house, so they may not suffer dogs to eat at the children's table.

The one-and-twentieth argument, which shall claudere agmen, shall be drawn from Acts xv., where we find an ecclesiastical assembly or synod of the apostles, elders, and other choice brethren, such as Judas and Silas. These did so assemble themselves, and proceed with authority in a business highly concerning the truth of the gospel, Christian liberty, the healing of scandal, and the preserving of peace in the church, as that it is manifest they had and executed a power of government distinct from magis

1 Curabit demque (œconomus) ut impuros et perdite viventis a familia excludat, eosdemque si pœnitentiam egerint, rursus in eam recipiat.

[ocr errors]

tracy. Mr Selden, de Jure Natur. et Gent., lib. 7, cap. 12, hath sufficiently expressed that which is the ground of my present argument, and I rather choose to speak it in his words than in my own: "Now, a dispute being had of this thing at Antioch, Paul and Barnabas (who having used many arguments against that Pharisaical opinion, yet could not end the controversy) are sent to Jerusalem, that there the thing might be determined by the apostles and elders. It is agitated in a synod. In it it is determined by the apostles and elders, that the Gentiles who had given their names to Christ, are not indeed bound by the law of Moses or of the Hebrews, as it is Mosaical and prescribed to the church or commonwealth of the Jews, but that they ought to enjoy their Christian liberty." And so much for that which the synod loosed them from. But what doth the synod bind upon them? The synod doth also impose certain things, namely, abstinence from fornication, and from things offered to idols, and from blood, and things strangled, UT QUÆ NECESSARIO OBSERVANDA, EX AUTHORITATE SYNODI, saith Mr Selden, being such as were necessarily to be observed, in regard of the authority of the synod, by those who, giving their names to the Christian religion, should live with the Jews (they also giving their names to the Christian religion), and so enter into religious fellowship with them." I shall add two other testimonies of Mr Prynne's. The first I shall take out of his Twelve Consider able Serious Questions concerning Church Government, p. 5, where, arguing against the independency of particular congregations, he asks, "Whether the synodal assembly of the apostles, elders, and brethren at Jerusalem, Acts xv., who made and sent binding decrees to the churches of the Gentiles in Antioch, Syria, and Cilicia, and other churches," be not an apparent subversion of Independency? So that, by Mr Prynne's confession, the Scripture holds forth other governors or rulers in the church beside magistrates, and the authority of these other governors to be such, as to make and send to the churches binding decrees in things and causes ecclesiastical. Another testimony I take from his Independency Examined, p. 10, 11, where he argueth against the Independents, and proveth from Acts xv., the authority of ordinary ecclesiastical synods; bringing also six arguments to prove that the apostles did not there act

in their extraordinary apostolical capacity, or as acted by a spirit of infallibility, but in their ordinary capacity. Thereafter he concludeth thus: "Therefore their assembling in this council, not in their extraordinary capacity as apostles only, but as elders, ministers, and the elders', brethren's, sitting together in council with them upon this controversy and occasion, is an undeniable Scripture authority for the lawfulness, use of parliaments, councils, synods, under the gospel, upon all like necessary occasions; and for their power to determine controversies of religion, to make canons in things necessary for the church's peace and government.

Lo, here Mr Prynne gives us an undeniable Scripture authority for a diatactic governing power in the church, distinct from magistracy. How he will draw from Acts xv. the use of parliaments or their authority, I do not imagine; it is enough for my argument that he acknowledgeth this scripture to warrant synods of ministers and elders, and the power of these synods to be not only consultive, but conclusive, decisive, and obligatory; for this (I suppose) he means by the power to determine controversies, and to make canons for the church's peace and government; else he had concluded nothing against the Independents, who yield a consultive synodical power.

If any shall yet desire to be more particularly satisfied concerning the strength of my present argument from Acts xv., I will make it out from these particulars following.

a

First, Here is a power and authority to assemble synodically, and it is an intrinsical power within the church itself, not adventitious or extrinsical from the magistrate. Whence the soundest Protestant writers prove, that though the civil magistrate hath à power of convocating synods, and he ought to do it when the church's necessity or danger doth call for such a remedy; yet this power of his is positive, not privative, cumulative, not destructive. And that "if the magistrate be an enemy and persecutor of the church and of true religion, or cease to do his duty, that is, to wit, in a manifest danger of the church, the church notwithstanding ought not to be wanting to herself, but ought to use the right and authority of convocation, which first and foremost remaineth with the rulers of the church; as may be seen, Acts xv." So say the Professors of Leyden, in Synops. purior. Theol.

disp. 49, thes. 24, beside divers others whom I might here cite, but that is not now my business.

Secondly, Beside the public debate and deliberation, the synod did also choose and send certain delegates or commissioners to Antioch, and wrote by them a synodical epistle to the churches in Antioch, Syria, and Cilicia. I believe such synodical acts of sending commissioners and letters to the churches in other nations or provinces, should now be looked upon as acts of government, if done without the leave of the magistrate, as then Judas and Silas were

sent.

Thirdly, That synod did exercise and make use of a threefold ecclesiastical power, for remedy of a threefold ecclesiastical disease. 1. They purge out the leaven of false doctrine and heresy, by deciding and determining that great controversy, whether circumcision and the keeping of the ceremonial law of Moses were necessary to salvation: they hold forth and declare to the churches the negative; and this they do by the dogmatic power. 2. There was a great scandal taken by the believing Jews (then not fully instructed and persuaded concerning the abrogation of the ceremonial law by the death of Christ), who were so far stumbled and offended at the believing Gentiles, for their eating of things sacrificed to idols, and of blood, and things strangled, that they could not freely nor contentedly converse, company, and eat together with the Gentiles. For remedy whereof, the synod doth require (in regard of the law of love, edification, peace, and avoiding of scandal) that the Gentiles should abstain from those things, as also from fornication (which for what cause it is added, I do not now dispute); and this they do by the diatactic power. 3. There was a oraois, a schism, dissention, and rent made in the church by the Judaising teachers, ver. 2, who clothed themselves with a pretended authority and warrant from the apostles and elders at Jerusalem, and thereupon got the more following, and drew away the more disciples after them. For remedy hereof, the synod stigmatiseth and brandeth those men, by declaring them to be liars, troublers of the church, and subverters of souls, ver. 24; and this they do by the critic power, or authority of censures. Fourthly, The decree and canon of the synod, which is made, imposed, emitted and promulgate, is authoritative, decisive, and

binding; Acts xv. 28, "For it seemeth good to the Holy Ghost, and (here the Arabic repeateth it seemeth good) to us, to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things; that ye abstain, &c." If it be said that this was but a doctrinal advice, "It seemed good," &c., I answer, Josephus Antiq. Jud. lib. 4, cap. 8, speaking of the decree of the supreme sanhedrim (which he that disobeyed was to be put to death), calls it rò dokovv, that which seemeth good: so likewise in this place, the word ēdote, is not meant of an opinion only, for an opinion (as schoolmen define it) is properly such a judgment of or assent to a thing, as is evident and firm, but not certain; so that opinion cannot be ascribed to the Holy Ghost; it is therefore here a word of authority and decree, as Mr Leigh, in his Critica Sacra at the word dokéw, noteth out of Chemnitius: in which sense the Grecians frequently use it. So Stephanus, out of Demosthenes, dedoxaι Ti Bouλ, it is decreed by the senate and Budæus out of Plato, dédokra uoi Karbaveir, it is certainly appointed to die. Observe also the word ἐπιτίθεσθαι, and ẞápos, imposing and burden. They do impose some burden, only they are careful to impose no burden except in necessary things: Acts xvi. 4, " And as they went through the cities they delivered them rà doyμara tà kekpiμéva, the decrees that were ordained of the apostles and elders which were at Jerusalem." And here I cannot pass the observation of that gentleman who hath taken so good pains in the original tongues, Mr Leigh, in his Critica Sacra of the New Testament, on the word dóyμa: "Wheresoever dóypa is found in the New Testament, it is put for decrees or laws, as Luke ii. 1; Acts xvii. 7, it is put for the decrees of Cæsar; and Eph. ii. 15; Col. ii. 14, for the ceremonial laws of Moses, and so frequently by the LXX. in the Old Testament for decrees; as Dan. ii. 13; iii. 10, 29; iv. 6; for laws, Dan. vi. 8." Cote

rum,

saith Erasmus upon Acts xvi. 4, dogmata Græca vox est, significans et ipsa decreta sive placita, non doctrinam ut vulgus existimat. And whereas some have objected, that doyparisw and doyμaricopa are used only in reference to a doctrinal power, as Col. ii. 20, doyμarileobaι, I answer, Budæus expounds doyuariw to be decerno, and Col. ii. 20, doyμari Zenbai, the Syriac makes it judicamini; Erasmus and Bullinger, decretis tenemini; Stephanus,

Beza, and Gualther, ritibus oneramini; the English translators, "Are ye subject to ordinances?" This subjection was not only to doctrines, but to commandments, ver. 22, "after the commandments and doctrines of men;" and these commandments (though in deed and truth the commandments of men only at that time) were imposed as the commandments of God, and as ceremonial laws by Moses. The vulgar Latin hath decernitis, and Tertullian readeth Sententiam fertis; both of them (it seemeth) having read δογματίζετε: however they understand the power related unto to be more than doctrinal.

I conclude, that doyuara, Acts xvi. 4, must be more than doctrinal declarations, and that it is meant of binding decrees (that I may use Mr Prynne's phrase), especially when joined with κοκριμένα ὑπὸ τῶν ἀποστόλον καὶ τῶν πρεσβυτέρων, there was a judgment passed and given upon the making and sending of those doyuara, not the judgment of one or two, but the judgment of the apostles and elders synodically assembled. So Acts xxi. 25, James and the elders, speaking of that synodical judgment, say, We have written and concluded that they observe no such thing," &c.

These four considerations being laid together, concerning an intrinsical ecclesiastical power of assembling together synodically; of choosing and sending commissioners with a synodical epistle to the churches in other parts; of providing effectual and necessary remedies both for heresies, scandals and schisms, arising in the church; of making and imposing binding decrees on the churches, will infallibly prove from Scripture authority another government in the church beside magistracy.

I might here add other arguments, but so much for this time.

CHAPTER X.

SOME OBJECTIONS AGAINST ECCLESIASTICAL GOVERNMENT AND DISCIPLINE ANSWERED.

Obj. 1. Mr Hussey, in his epistle to my self, objecteth thus," What will your censure do? it will shame a few whores and knaves; a great matter to shame them the law of nature shameth."

All this in terminis might have been as justly objected against the Apostle Paul,

when he wrote to the Corinthians to put away from among themselves the incestuous man. What will your censure do, Paul? a great matter to shame one whom the law of nature shameth. The Lord save me from that religion which will not shame whores and thieves, and all other whom the law of nature shameth, and that in a church way (as well as civilly) if any such member fall into such impiety: yet this is not all. All orthodox writers that write of church censures, will tell him, that scandals, either of doctrine or life, either against the first or second table, fall under ecclesiastical cognisance and censure.

Obj. 2. He argueth thus, ibid. "Sure in the day of our Lord there will be as good a return of the word preached, as of the censure." And in his Plea, p. 1, "If the word be able to make the man of God perfect, then nothing is wanting to him, perfectum cui nihil deest; and it is a wonder how that conscience should be wrought upon by human authority, with whom divine cannot prevail."

Ans. 1. This also he might as well have objected against the Apostle Paul, who did require the Corinthians to put away from among them the incestuous man, and Titus to reject an heretic after once or twice admonishing of him. 2. He might object the same thing against magistracy. Shall there not be a better account of the word preached than of magistracy? and if the word be able to make the man of God perfect, there is no need of magistracy; perfectum est cui nihil deest. Surely many Erastian arguments do wound civil as well as ecclesiastical government. 3. Church censures are not acts of human authority, for they are dispensed in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ, and (if clave non errante) are ratified in heaven. 4. Discipline is no addition to that word which is able to make the man of God perfect, for it is one of the directions of the word. 5. The comparison which some make between the efficacy of the word preached, and the efficacy of church discipline, as to the point of converting and winning souls, is a mere fallacy ab ignoratione elenchi; for church discipline is not intended as a converting, light-giving, or life-giving ordinance. "Faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the word of God;" and the word is "the power of God for salvation to every one that believeth;" but ecclesiastical discipline hath a necessary use, though it hath not that use.

Discipline and censures in the church are intended, 1. For the glory of God, that his name may not be blasphemed, nor the doctrine of the gospel reproached, by occasion of uncensured scandals in the church. 2. For keeping the ordinances of Christ from profanation and pollution, that signa gratiæ divinæ, the signs of God's favour and grace, and the seals of his covenant, may be denied to unworthy scandalous persons. 3. For preserving the church from the infection of bad and scandalous examples, it is fit to put a black mark upon them, and to put away the wicked person, as the Apostle saith; for a rotten member if it be not cut off, and a scabbed sheep, if not separated from the flock, may infest the rest. 4. For the good also of the offender himself," that he may be ashamed," and humbled, 2 Thes. iii. 14; 2 Cor. ii. 7. This afflicting of the sinner with shame and sorrow, may, and shall, by the blessing of God, be a means to the destruction of the flesh, 1 Cor. v. 5; that is, to tame and mortify his lusts, and so far removere prohibens, that he may be the better wrought upon by the word. I conclude: Church government being instituted by Christ, and having a necessary use in the church, the Erastians gain nothing by comparing it with the word; because it is not so necessary as the word; therefore it is not necessary at all. Or, because it is not efficacious in the same manner as the word is, therefore it is not efficacious at all. The Apostle saith, "Christ sent me not to baptize but to preach the gospel," 1 Cor. i. 17. What if he had said, "Christ sent me not to rule but to preach the gospel?" Then had the Erastians triumphed. Yet this expression could not have proved that church government is not an ordinance of Christ, more than that can prove that baptism is not an ordinance of Christ. A negative in the comparative, will not infer a negative in the positive.

Obj. 3. "I could never yet see (said Mr Coleman) how two co-ordinate governments, exempt from superiority and inferiority, can be in one state."

Against this I instanced in the co-ordinate governments of a general and an admiral, of a master and a father, of a captain and a master in one ship. Mr Hussey, finding he cannot make good Mr Coleman's word, tells me, p. 7, that he meaneth two supreme co-ordinate governments. Where first he loseth ground, and tacitly yieldeth that church government and civil govern

ment, distinct from each other, do well consist, as long as they are not supreme, but as two armies under one head. No inconsistency, therefore, of congregational and classical elderships, and of provincial assemblies, with the subordinate magistrates and civil courts in cities and counties. Next, we shall find also in Scripture two co-ordinate supreme governments, for the civil and ecclesiastical sanhedrim of the Jews were both supreme and co-ordinate, and there was no appeal from the sentence of either; as is evident by that disjunctive law, Deut. xvii. 12, " And the man that will do presumptuously, and will not hearken unto the priest (that is to the priests, ver. 9), or unto the judge (that is, the assembly or court of judges, as I have cleared elsewhere), even that man shall die." But I have also answered more fully this objection concerning co-ordination, chap. 8.

Obj. 4. Ministers have other work to do, and such as will take up the whole man. "To this argument (saith Mr Hussey, p. 8) Mr Gillespie maketh no answer at all, though St Paul useth the very same argument to discharge the preachers from the oversight of the poor, Acts vi. 2, God forbid we should leave the care of the word of God, and serve at tables." It will not be unseasonable to mind both him and Mr Prynne, that the canonized names, by them used stylo Romano, St Paul, St Matthew, St Mark, &c., ought to be laid aside, except they will use it of all saints. And why not as well St Moses, and St Aaron (whom the Psalmist calls the "Saints of the Lord)?" Or why not St Aquila, St Apollos, St Epaphras? &c. Methinks men professing reformation ought not to satisfy themselves in using this form of speech only of such as have been canonized at Rome, and enrolled saints in the Pope's calender. And as strange it is that Mr Hussey makes Paul to act in the business, Acts vi., before he was either saint or apostle. Now to the argument. I did answer at first (though Mr Hussey is pleased not to take notice of it), p. 36, that where Mr Coleman objected, ministers have other work to do, he might as well have added, that when ministers have done that other work, and all that ever they can, yet without the power of church government, they shall not keep themselves nor the ordinances from pollution; that is, church government is a part of their work, and a necessary part, which hath been proved. I thought it enough to touch

« ПретходнаНастави »