GOVERNMENT.

STILLINGFLEET, afterwards Bishop of Worcester, published in 1659 a book on "the divine right of particular forms of church government," in which he attempts to prove, and to my apprehension does prove from the nature of things, from Scripture, and from history, that that doctrine is of human origin. His design was to allay the heated controversies of those times, and if possible to induce conflicting parties to agree to differ. The book is written in an excellent spirit, and contains much excellent argument, as well as some curious historical matter. An abstract of the whole would be valuable matter for the Spectator, and I had hoped to be able to furnish such an abstract, together with some facts, not now generally known or remembered, respecting the use which was made of the work some years ago by an American clergyman, now a venerable bishop. But other avocations have pushed my purpose from me, and for the present I only extract a passage from that part of the argument which concerns the Scrip

tures.

Now the word of God being the only Codex and Digest of Divine Laws, what ever Law we look for, must either be found there in express terms, or at least so couched therein, that every one by the exercise of his understanding, may by a certain and easy collection, gather the universal obligation of the thing inquired after. In this case then, whatsoever is not immediately founded upon a Divine Testimony cannot be made use of as a medium to infer an universally binding law by: So that all traditions and historical evidence will be unserviceable to us, when we inquire into God's intentions in binding men's consciences. Matters of

may I freely grant, receive much light from the records of succeeding ages; but they can never give a man's understanding sufficient ground to infer any Divine Law, arising from those facts attested to by the practice or records of succeeding ages.

For first, the foundation and ground of our assent in this case, is not the bare testimony of antiquity; but the assurance which we have, either that their practice did not vary their writings, that they could not from what was Apostolical, or in mistake concerning what they deliver unto us: And therefore those who would infer the necessary obligation of men to any form of government, because that was practised by the Apostles, and then prove the Apostolical practice from that of the ages succeeding, or from their writings, must first of all prove, that what was done then, was certainly the Apostles' practice, and so prove the same thing by its self, or that it was imthat they should mistake in judging of possible they should vary from it, or it: For here something more is required than a meer matter of fact, in which I confess their nearness to the Apostles' times doth give them an advantage above the ages following, to discern what it was; but such a practice is required, as infers an universal obligation upon all places, times, and persons. Therefore these things must be manifested; that such things were the practice of those ages and persons; that their practice was the same with the Apostles; that what they did was not from any prudential motives, but by virtue of a Law which did not bind them to that practice. Which things are easily passed over by the most eager disputers of the controversie about Church Government, but how necessary they are to be proved before any form of Government be asserted, so necessa

ry, that without it there can be no true Church, any weak understanding may discern.

Secondly, supposing that Apostolical practice be sufficiently attested by the following ages, yet unless it be cleared from Scripture that it was God's intention that the Apostles' actions should continually bind the Church, there can be nothing inferred that doth concern us in point of conscience. I say, that though the matter of fact be evidenced by posterity, yet the obligatory nature of that fact must depend on Scripture: and the Apostles' intentions must not be built upon men's bare surmises, nor upon after-practices, especially if different from the constitution of things during the Apostles' times. And here those have somewhat whereon to exercise their understandings, who assert an obligation upon men, to any form of Government, by virtue of an Apostolical practice, which must of necessity suppose a different state of things from what they were when the Apostles first established governours over churches. As how those who were appointed governours over particular congregations by the Apostles, come to be by virtue of that ordination, governours over many congregations of like nature and extent with that over which they were set: And whether, if it were the apostles' intention that such governours should be always in the Church, is it not necessary that that intention of theirs be declared by a standing Law, that such there must be; for here matter of fact and practice can be no evidence, when it is supposed to be different from the constitution of churches afterward: But of this more hereafter.

Thirdly, supposing any form of Government in its selfnecessary, and that necessity not determined by a Law in the word of God, the Scripture is thereby apparently argued to be insufficient for its end; for then deficit in necessariis; some things

are necessary for the Church of God which the Scripture is wholly silent in. I say not that every thing about Church Government must be written in Scripture; but supposing any one form necessary, it must be there commanded, or the Scripture is an imperfect rule, which contains not all things necessary by way of precept: For there can be no other necessity universal, but either by way of means to an end, or by way of Divine command: I know none will say that any particular form of government is necessary absolutely, by way of means to an end; for certainly, supposing no obligation from Scripture, government by an equality of power in the officers of the Church, or by superiority of one order above another are indifferent in order to the general ends of government, and one not more necessary than the other. If any one form then be necessary, it must be by that of command; and if there be a command universally binding, whose footsteps cannot be traced in the word of God, how can the Scriptures be a perfect rule, if it fails in determining binding Laws? So that we must, if we own the Scripture's sufficiency as a binding rule, appeal to that about any thing pleaded as necessary, by virtue of any divine command, and if such a Law cannot be met with in Scripture, which determines the case in hand one way or other, by way of necessary obligation, I have ground to look upon that which is thus left undetermined by God's positive Laws, to be a matter of Christian liberty; and that neither part is to be looked upon as necessary for the Church of God, as exclusive of the other.

I subjoin another extract from the third part of the work. The author cites the opinions of a learned assembly of Divines, called together at Windsor by the King's special order—to whom a number of questions were propounded and among them the following.

"Whether the Apostles, lacking a

higher power, as in not having a Christian king among them, made bishops by that necessity, or by authority given them of God?"

"Whether the bishops, or priests were first; and if the priest were first then the priest made the bishop?"

A part of Archbishop Cranmer's answer, was as follows.

"In the Apostles time, when there was no Christien Princes by whose authority Ministers of Gods Word might be appointed, nor synnes by the sword corrected; there was no remedy then for the correction of Vice, or apponteing of Ministers, but only the consent of the Christien multitude among themselfe, by an uniform consent to follow the advice and perswasion of such persons whom God had most endued with the spirit of Wisdom and Counsaile. And at that time, for as much as Christien people had no Sword nor Governour among them, thei were constrained of necesity to take such Curates and Priests, as either they knew themselfes to be meet thereunto, or else as were commended unto them by other, that were so replete with the Spirit of God, with such knoledge in the prefession of Christ, such Wisdom, such Conversation and Councell, that they ought even of very Conscience to give credit unto them, and to accept such as by them were presented. And so some tyme the Apostles and other unto whom God had given abundantly his Spirit, sent or appointed Ministers of Gods Word, sometime the people did chose such as they thought meete thereunto. And when any were appointed or sent by the Apostles or other, the people of their awne voluntary will with thanks did accept them; not for the Supremitie, Imperie, or Dominion, that the Apostells had over them to command as their Princes or Masters: but as good people, ready to obey the advice of good Counsellors, and to accept any thing that was neces

sary for their edification and benefit.

"The Bishops and Priests were at one time, and were not two things, but both one Office in the beginning of Christ Religion.

The author adds "This judgment of his is thus subsbribed by him with his own hand."

This is mine

"T. Cantuariens. opinion and sentence at this present, which I do not temariously define but do remitt the judgement thereof holly to your Majesty.”

Which I have exactly transcribed out of the original, and have observed generally the form of writing at that time used. In the same MS. it appears, that the Bishop of St. Asaph, Therleby, Redman, and Coz, were all of the same opinion with the Archbishop, that at first, Bishops and Presbyters were the same; and the two latter expresly cite the opinion of Jerome with approbation. Thus we see by the testimony, chiefly of him who was instrumental in our Reformation, that he owned not Episcopacy as a distinct order from Presbytery of divine right, but only as a prudent constitution of the civil magistrate for the better governing in the Church.

We now proceed to the re-establishment of church govermnent under our most happy Q. Elizabeth. After our Reformation had truely undergone the fiery tryal in Q. Marie's days, and by those flames was made much more refined and pure, as well as splendid and illustrious; In the articles of Religion agreed upon, our English Form of Church Government was only determined to be agreeable to God's Holy Word, which had been a very low and diminishing expression, had they looked on it as absolutely prescribed and determined in Scripture, as the only necessary form to be observed in the Church. The first who solemnly appeared in vindication of the English Hierarchy was Arch-Bishop

Whitgift a sage and prudent person, whom we cannot suppose either ignorant of the sense of the Church of England, or afraid or unwilling to defend it. Yet he frequently against Cartwright asserts, that "the form of discipline is not particularly and by name set down in Scripture:" And again, "No kind of government is expressed in the word, or can necessarily be concluded from thence," which he repeats over again; "No form of Church Government is by the Scriptures prescribed to, or commanded the Church of God." And so Dr. Cosins, his Chancellor, in answer to the Abstract, "All Churches have not the same form of Discipline, neither is it necessary that they should, seeing it cannot be proved that any certain particular form of Church Government is commended to us by the Word of God." To the same purpose Dr. Low, "No certain form of Government is prescribed in the Word, only general Rules laid down for it." Bishop Bridges," God hath not expressed the form of Church Government, at least not so as to bind us to it." They who please but to consult the third Book of learned and judicious Mr. Hooker's Ecclesiastical Polity, may see the mutability of the Form of Church Government largely asserted and fully proved.

EXTRACTS FROM ANDREW CANT.

The renewing of the Solemn League and Covenant in Scotland, in 1638, was an event of great joy and congratulation, and called forth many sermons, addresses, and exhortations. In an old collection of these productions are several discourses by Andrew Cant, sometime minister at Aberdeen. They are a strange mixture of rich and ludicrous thoughts, clothed in odd but forcible language. The following extracts are taken nearly at random, from a sermon founded on the parable of the marriage of the king's son.

He sent forth his Servants. Ye would think, if any had wronged you, it were their part to seek you, and not yours to seek them, or if any baser than another had done a wrong, it beseemed him to be most careful to take pains, and seek to him whom he had wronged: but behold here a wonder! The great God seeking base man! the offended God seeking offending man! And this is because he has need of you? Nay, canst thou be a party for him? Canst thou hold the field against him? Nay. Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it, Why hast thou made me thus? Shall the crawling worm, and the pickle of small dust fight against the King of kings? Art thou able to stand out against him, or pitch any field against him? Nay, I tell thee, O man, there is not a pickle of hair in thy head, but if God arise in anger, he can cause it seem a devil unto thee, and every nail of thy fingers, to be a torment of hell against thee. O Lord of hosts, and King of kings, who can stand out against thee? And yet thou hast offended him, and run away from him, and miskent him, and transgressed all his commandments, and hell and wrath, and judgment is thy portion which thou deservest, and yet the Lord is sending out his servants, to see if they can make an agreement. Then for God's sake, think on this wonder: for all the text is full of wonders; all God's works are indeed full of wonders, but this is the wonder of wonders. We then are God's ambassadors, I beseech you to be reconciled to God. Should not ye have sought unto him first, with ropes about your necks, with sackcloth upon your loins, and with tears in your eyes? Should not ye have lain at his door, and scraped, if ye could not knock? And yet the Lord hath sent me to you, and our faithful men about here, crying, come away to the marriage: come away, I will renew my contract with you; I will not give you a bill of divorcement, but I will give my Son to you;

and your souls that are black and blae I will make them beautiful.

He sent forth his servants. We may learn from this, that we who are the brethren in the ministry must be servants, and not lords. I wish at my heart, that we knew what we are, and that we knew our calling, and what we have gotten in trust; for we serve the best master in the world; but I'll tell you, he is the strictest master that can be. I'll tell thee, O minister, and I speak it to thee with reverence, and I speak it to myself, there is a day coming, when thou must answer to God for what thou hast got in charge, thou must answer to God for all the talents thou hast got, whether ten or two; for all have not got alike: but, dear brethren, happy is the man, if he had but one talent, that puts it out for his Lord's use; and Lord be thanked, that he will seek no inore of me than he has given me. There are many things to discourage a faithful minister; but yet this may encourage us, that we serve the best master, and that is a sure recompence of reward that is abiding us. Indeed he has not sent us out to seek ourselves, or to get gain ourselves; he has not sent us out to woo a bride to ourselves, or to woo home the Lord to our own bosom only, but he has sent us to woo a bride, and to deck and trim a spouse for our Lord and master. And ye that are ministers of Glasgow, ye shall all be challanged upon

this;

whether or not ye have laboured to woo and train a bride for your Lord: But I know that you will be careful to present your flocks as a chaste spouse to him. And we also that are ministers in Landwart, we are sent out for this errand, it matters not what part of the world we be in, if we do our master's service; and the day is coming, when thou must answer to God for thy parish, whether thou hast laboured to present it as a chaste spouse to Christ. It may gar the

soul of the faithful minister leap for joy, when he remembers the day of his Majesty's meeting and his, when he shall give up his accounts, and then it shall be seen who has employed his talent well: Then shall he say, Well done, good and faithful servant, thou hast been faithful over a few things, I will make thee ruler over many things; enter thou into thy master's joy. Matt. xxv. 23. or rather, Let thy master's joy enter into thee, and take and fill thy soul with it. Many a sad heart has a faithful watchman; but there is a day coming, when he shall get a joyful heart. But for whom especially is this joy reserved? It is even for those who convert many to righteousness; they shall shine like the stars in the firmament in the Kingdom of their Father, Dan. xii. 2. Matt. xiii. 43. It is plain this belongs not to thee, O faithless watchman. What hast thou been doing? Busking a bride for thyself? Busking a bride for the Pope of Rome, the Bishop of Rome, even for Antichrist? becking and bingeing to this table and that altar, bringing in the tapistry of antichristian hangings, and endeavouring to set the crown on another man's head, nor Christ's? But thou that wilt not set on the crown on his head, and labour to hold it on, thou O preacher, the vengeance of God shall come upon thee, the blood of souls shall be upon thee. Many a Kirk-man eats blood, and drinks blood; Lord deliver our souls from blood-guiltiness. Dear brethren, let us repent, let us repent: I trow we have been all in the wrong to the bridegroom; shame shall be upon thee that thinks shame to repent. I charge you all, before the timber and stones of this house, and before the same day-light that ye behold, and that under no less pain nor the loss of the salvation of your souls, that ye wrong not the bridegroom nor his bride any more. But we come to our point.

We are servants and not Lords. I see never a word in this text, nay, in all