onely mark to discern what is the subject of Reformation and what not All Warre made upon the Title of Christianity is unjust and destructive to it Therefore Religion cannot be Reformed by force Of the present State of Christianity among us and the means that is left us to recover the Vnity of the Church THat which hath been said as it concerns the present case of this Church seems to be liable to one main Objection which is this That if the power of Bishops and Presbyters be such as hath been said by Divine Right that nothing can be done without them in their respective Churches it will follow that in case the State of the Church be corrupt by processe of time and their default especially so that the common good of the Church require Reformation by changing of Laws in force if they consent not it cannot be brought to passe without breach of Divine Right This may well seem to be the false light that hath misguided well affected persons to seek the Reformation presently pretended For seeing it is agreed upon among us that there was a time and a State of the Church which required Reformation and that if the Clergy of that time had been supported in that power which by the premises is challenged on behalfe of the Clergy this Reformation could not have been brought to passe It seems therefore to the most part of men that distinguish not between causes and pretenses that where Reformation is pretended there the power lawfully in force to the Society of the Church ought to cease that the Reformation may proceed either by Secular power or if that consent not by force of the People To strengthen this objection as to the Reformation of this Church it may further be said that though it is true that the Order of Bishops hath been propagated in this Church at and since the Reformation by Ordinations made according to the form of that Apostolicall Canon That a Bishop be Ordained by two or three Bishops yet if we judge of the Originall intent of that Canon by the generall practice of the Church it will appear that it is but the abridgement of the IV Canon of the Councell of Nice which requireth that all Bishops be Ordained by a Councell of the Bishops of the Province Which because it cannot always be had therefore it is provided that two or three may doe the work the rest consenting and authorizing the proceeding A thing which seems necessarily true by that which hath been said of the dependence of Churches consisting in this that the Act of part of the Church obliges the whole because that part which it concerns and the Unity of the whole which it produceth stands first obliged by it being done according to the Laws of the whole By which reason the Act of Ordination of a Bishop obliges the whole Church to take him for a Bishop because the Mother Church to which he belongs and the rest of Cathedrall Churches under the same do acknowledge it And this is that which the Ordinance of the Apostles hath provided to keep the Visible Communion of the whole Church in Unity To which it is requisite that a Christian communicate with the whole Church as a Christian a Bishop Presbyter or Deacon as such But when among the Bishops of any Province part consent to Ordinations part not the Unity of the Church cannot be preserved unlesse the consent of the whole follow the consent of the greater part And therefore though the Canon of Nice be no part of Divine Right yet seeing the precept of the Unity of the Church being the end which all the Positive Laws of Church Government aim at obligeth before any Positive precept of the Government thereof which we see are many ways dispensed with for preservation thereof and that it appears to be the generall custome of the Primitive Church to make Ordinations at those Provinciall Councels which by another Apostolicall Canon XXXVIII were to be held twice a year it seemeth that there can no valid Ordination be made where the greater number of the Bishops of the Province dissent Which is confirmed by the Ordination of Novatianus for Bishop of Rome which though done by three Bishops as the Letter of Cornelius to the Eastern Bishops recorded by Eusebius Eccles Hist VI. 43. testifieth yet was the foundation of that great Schisme because Cornelius was Ordained on the other side by sixteen as we reade in S. Cyprian Now it is manifest that the Ordinations by which that Order is propagated in England at and since the Reformation were not made by consent of the greater part of Bishops of each Province but against their minde though they made no contrary Ordinations And by the same means it is manifest that all those Ecclesiasticall Laws by which the Reformation was established in England were not made by a consent capable to oblige the Church if we set aside the Secular Power that gave force unto that which was done contrary to that Rule wherein the Unity of the Church consisteth But in other parts the Reformation established was so far from being done by Bishops and Presbyters or any consent able to conclude the Church by the Constitution of the Church that the very Order of Bishops is laid aside and forgot if not worse that is detested among them Upon which precedent it sounds plansibly with the greatest part among us that the Unity of the whole being dissolved by the Reformation the Unity of the Reformation cannot be preserved but by dissolving the Order of Bishops among us Before I come to resolve this difficulty it will be requisite to examine what Privileges and Penalties the Secular Power is enabled to enforce Religion within a Christian State Because it hath been part of the dispute of this time that some Privileges of the Church are contrary to Christianity as also some Penalties upon matter of Conscience And the resolution of it will make way to my answer Now the resolution hereof must come from the ground laid from the beginning of this Discourse that Christianity importeth no temporall Privilege or advantage of this present World and therefore that Christianity enableth no man to advance and propagate his Christianity by force For as it is contrary to the nature thereof to bee forced seeing the Service of God which it requireth is not performed by any man that is not willing to doe it nor the Faith beleeved but by them that are willing to beleeve it So seeing it gives no man any privilege of this world which he cannot challenge by a lawfull title of Humane Right and that no title of Humane Right can enable any man to impose upon another that Faith which Humane reason reveals not therefore can no Humane power force any man to be a Christian by the utmost penalty of death which is that which force endeth in to them that submit not It is true the Law of Moses imposeth death for a penalty in
that is to say by the Power given the Church by God of ordering those things which were not determined by any Divine Precept and yet became determinable the case is the same and the reason is where it was For if the Church by the Power given it by God immediately be enabled to make it self a Society for the better maintenance and propagation of Christianity and have executed that Power by enabling every part of the Church to maintain it self in the Unity of the Whole by the same Power in order to and dependence upon the Whole then are all Christians bound by a Divine Precept of obeying the Governours of the Church before they can be bound to obey the Secular Powers in Church matters The one Power being constituted by the immediate revelation and appointment of God in matters concerning the Society of the Church the other constituted indeed by the Providence of God executed by man but enforced by the Law of Christianity to be obeyed in all things not excepted by the same whereof this is one And if the consent of the Christian world can be of any moment in a matter wherein the Clergy are parties indeed as they must needs be but must challenge their right at their utmost hazard it is not possible to give a more pregnant instance for the right of Excommunication in the Church then the troubles of Athanasius of Alexandria and Alexander of Constantinople for refusing to admit Arrius to communicate with the Church being cast out by the Councell of Nice the act whereof they could not void the good Emperour being seduced to think it necessary for the quiet of the Church And not onely by this particular but by all the proceedings of the first Christian Emperours in the affairs of the Church who had great advantage in discerning the true Interesse of the State and the Church not onely by the advise of those Bishops which had received it fresher from the source but by sensible knowledge of the whole right which they found the Church in possession of when they came to be members of it it is manifest that they never sought to bring to effect that which they were perswaded to be necessary for the establishment of Christianity whether truly or falsly as well as for the quiet of their Estates and People by the immediate act of their own Soveraign Power but by the act of those that were then held able to conclude the Church Imploying their Secular Power in consequence to the same to inforce such acts though not always valid to oblige the Church by temporall Penalties on them that refused as enemies to the publick Peace Seeing then that the Church is a Society Community Corporation or spirituall Commonwealth subsisting by the immediate revelation and appointment of God without dependence upon those Christian States wherein it is harboured as to the Right by which it subsisteth and the matter wherein it communicateth but depending upon them for the force which is necessarily requisite to maintain the whole People of all Christian States in the communion of their respective Churches and by them of the whole it followeth of necessity that it is endowed with Rights correspondent to those wherein the Soveraignty of States consisteth The Power of the Sword is the principall of those Rights into which the rest are resolved when they are enforced to have recourse unto it for the execution of that which becomes requisite to make them available And the Church hath the Sword of the Spirit which is the word of God which is used two manner of ways as the Sword is either to subdue strangers or to cut off malefactors Let no man imagine that any private person is enabled to propagate the Gospel and constitute new Churches of persons newly converted to Christianity without competent Commission from the Church To bring men to be Christians indeed is that which not onely any of the Clergy but any Christian may doe and is to doe when he findes himself able to act towards it without disadvantage to Christianity It is that which the Ecclesiasticall Histories informe us that Frumentius and Aedesius did in India and the captive maid in Iberia as well as those of the dispersion of Jerusalem in Phoenice and Cyprus and at Antiochia Acts XI 19 20. But the authority by which they became a Church they were to seek where it was before at Alexandria and Constantinople as well as those at Jerusalem Acts XI 22. Because in the Church the Sword of the Spirit which is the word of God is deposited and trusted with the Church for the propagation as well as the maintenance of it and though all Christians must needs understand themselves to be under an habituall trust or a commission dormant to perswade all that they can to the Christianity which they have themselves yet the expresse commission of the Church imports further the exercise of that Power which the Society thereof already useth towards them that by virtue of the said Commission shall be brought to be Christians At least it may import so much if we suppose it granted to such purpose The Sword of the Spirit is used within the Church to the punishment of malefactors upon two sorts of causes For if any man forfeit his Christianity either by denying the Faith upon profession whereof he was admitted to Christianity or by living contrary to the same the same Sword of the Spirit which pronounces him cut off from God cuts him off from the Church And in regard that it is part of Christianity to beleeve that God hath ordained a Church the consequence whereof is to oblige all Christians to maintain themselves in the Unity of the same which cannot be done by those that refuse to be concluded by it in all things not contrary to Gods Law the same Sword of the Spirit that subdues all men to be Christians upon condition to live members of the Church cuts them off from the Communion of the Church that will not live within compasse of the Unity of it The Power of the Sword being supposed in the Church Jurisdiction follows which consists not so much in judging as in executing the sentence Not that there is any such thing as Jurisdiction such as the Civile Laws of the Romanes and all other People understand which proceeds by constraint of outward force in the Church But because the Church being constituted of such as desire to continue Christians upon supposition of this will to continue a Christian he may be said to be constrained to hear the Church that cannot communicate with the Church unlesse he doe so as it requires Upon the same ground subsists the Right of Ordinations answerable to that part of Soveraignty in States which consists in creation of Magistrates and Officers for it is without doubt beside the intent of the Romane Laws to call the Soveraign a Magistrate Magistrates being generally Ministers of the Soveraign which creates a particular Power over the
in rank after Rome which is here touched p. 59. And it is that of the power of Eusebius and of Nicomedia the City of his Bishoprick For because during the time of Diocletian Nicomedia was as it were the Seat of the Empire he having made it his main Residence with an intent to have it so continue thereupon saith the History Eusebius growing to great eminence in the Church undertook the support of Arius against Alexander of Alexandria If therefore the Bishop of Nicomedia had attained such authority in the Church by the ambulatory residence of the Empire there since the time of Diocletian well might the preeminence settle at Constantinople when Constantine had fixed the Seat of the Empire there and that by the virtue of the Rule given by the Apostles though the effect thereof come after the act of Constantine To that which I have said from p. 62. of the great difference that is to be found in the execution of the Apostles Rule that Churches should be planted in Cities or in the greatest Residences in severall Counties that is to be added which Sozomenus Eccles Hist VI. 20. hath recorded concerning that Province which he cals Scythia the Romanes Moesia Inferior in which at the time of the Emperour Valens there was but one Bishop of the Mother City Tomi the place of Ovids banishment For this is the same case with that which is related by Eutychius of Aegypt before Demetrius was Bishop of Alexandria that there was no more Bishops in it besides that one the same which Godignus relates of the Abassines that there is to this day but one Bishop in all that Dominion as you have it here p. 64. To all the reasons here produced for the Dependence of Churches adde the consideration of the Unity of the Church how it was commanded by God in point of right and how provided and maintained in point of Fact by the Church For if the Church be a Visible Society commanded to live in Unity then is the Unity thereof commanded to be Visible That is it is commanded that Christians preserve Unity with all Christians not onely in Faith and Love inwardly in the minde but also in the outward Communion of all those Ordinances wherein God hath appointed his Service under the Gospel to consist And this is manifest by the words of S. Paul to the Ephesians exhorting them to continue in Unity because they have one Lord one Faith one Baptism one God and Father of All Eph. IV. 4. For if these motives and reasons were proper to the Church of the Ephesians then might it very well be thought that Christians are obliged thereby onely to live in Unity with those of the same Church But since they are common to all Christians of all Churches never so remote it followeth that the Precept of upholding the Unity of the Church obligeth all Christians visibly to communicate with all Christians By which reason the same may be proved by all or most of those Scriptures which recommend or which onely mention the Unity of the Church But it is most peremptorily proved by that which hath been produced in the first Chapter to shew the condition upon which all men are to be admitted to the Communion of the Church which is the Profession of Christianity For seeing that is one and the same in all parts and Climates of the World as introduced by the same Power and derived from the same Fountain it follows that no Church hath any further to enquire about any mans right of communicating with the Church but whether his Profession be allowed by his own Church and whether that hold Communion with the Whole And truly because it is the same condition which entitles all men to the Communion of the Church all over the world that is to Professe the substance of Christianity therefore all Churches are to procure that there be nothing to hinder this Communion when that condition is performed and every person of those Churches in their severall qualities that nothing else be demanded But when some Churches or some parts of one and the same Church demand for the condition of communicating with others something more then was appointed for the condition of it from the beginning separation and Schism follows the cause whereof is commonly doubtfull because it appears not how farre severall Churches or parts of the same are to yeeld to the acts of others which would conclude the whole if they should yeeld when it appears not how the matter of them agrees with that condition of Communion with the Church that was delivered from the beginning But when both sides charge the blame on the contrary party they shew that they are both agreed that the blame must lie on one side and therefore that the unity of the Church is such as hath been said because Schism in the Church no more then War in civile Society can be just on both sides Now it is very manifest that in the Primitive Church this unity was actuated by intercourse of letters from Church to Church begun first and established by the Apostles themselves whose writings are almost all Epistles For by their Epistles as the matter of Christianity is more and more declared so the intercourse and correspondence of the Church is preserved in as much as it is manifest that their Epistles require nothing of the Churches to which but the same which they require of the Churches from which they write so that there must needs be correspondence between all that acknowledge the Apostles holding correspondence The same course was continued not onely by the Epistles of the Primitive Bishops which are a great part of their writings still remaining but a great deal more by the intercourse of their Formatae or letters of mark which every Christian that travelled into a strange Country taking with him from his own Church found not onely the Communion of the Church open to him wheresoever he came but also that assistance in his affairs which Christians are to expect from the charity of Christians And of this kinde the Epistle to the Romanes may be accounted because of the recommendation of Phoebe XVI 2. as of a Deaconesse in the Church of Cenchreae near Corinth The effect of this course is visible in all the proceedings of the Primitive Church whereof we have some memorable instances here afore related When by the result of a Councell such or such Bishops are removed from their Churches it is ordinarily signified to other Churches by the letters of the Councell with this warning That none of them from thenceforth write to the persons so sentenced nor receive letters from them as Bishops Marcion being put out of his Fathers Church of Pontus is refused to be admitted to Communion at Rome lest the unity of the Church should be dissolved if the act of a Church so far distant should not be made good by that of Rome being an act in the Power of that Church to doe Therefore
necessary to the communion of the Church in his Dominions which the Soveraigns over other parts of the Church perhaps allow not But though as a Divine I admit this debate yet as a Christian and a Divine both I condemne the separation which they have made before it be decided The Church of England giveth to the King that power in Church matters which the Kings of Gods ancient people and Christian Emperours after them always practised This possession was enough to have kept Unity though the reason appeared not why Christian Princes should have the same right in the Church as the Kings of Judah had in the Synagogue For if they observe it well this right is no where established upon the Kings of Gods ancient people by way of precept in the Law For seeing the Law commanded them not to have a King but gave them leave to have a King when they would upon such terms as it requireth Deut. XVII 14. it cannot be said that any Right in matters of Religion is setled upon the King by that Law which never provided that there should be a King The question is then not whether the Kings of Judah had power in matters of Religion which is express in Scripture but upon what Title they had it which is not to be had but by Interpretation of the Law And this we shall finde if we consider that the Law was given to that people when they were freed from bondage and invested in the Soveraign power of themselves as to a Body Politick such as they became by submitting to it So that though many precepts thereof concern the conscience of particular persons yet there are also many that take hold of the community of the people for which particular persons cannot be answerable further then the Rate of that power by which they act in it As the destroying of Malefactors Idolaters in particular These Precepts then being given to the community of the People and the common Power of the People falling to the King constituted according to the Law aforesaid it followeth that being invested with the Power he stands thereby countable for the Laws to be inforced by it And then the question that remains will be no more but this Whether civill Societies and the Soveraign Powers of them are called to be Christian as such and not onely as particular persons A thing which Tertullian seems to have doubted of when he made an if of it Apologet. cap. XXI Si possent esse Caesares Christiani If Emperours could be Christians And Origen when he expounds the words of Moses I will provoke them to jealousie by a people which are not a people so he reads it of the Christians whereof there were some in all Nations and no whole Nation professed Christianity in X ad Rom. lib. VIII in Psal XXXVI Hom. I. seems to count this estate and condition essentiall to the Church But since Anabaptists are no more Anabaptists in denying the power of the Sword to be consistent with Christianity it seems there is no question left about this as indeed there ought to be none For the Prophesies which went before of the calling of the Gentiles to Christianity were not fulfilled till the Romane Empire professed to maintain it And thereby the will of God being fulfilled it is manifest that the will of God is that civill Societies the Powers of them should maintain Christianity by their Sword and the Acts to which it enableth But always with that difference from the Synagogue which hath been expressed For if the Church subsist in severall Soveraignties the power which each of them can have in Church matters must needs be concluded by that power which God hath ordained in his Church for the determining of such things the determining whereof shall become necessary to preserve the Unity of it Thus much premised the first point we are to debate is Whether Excommunication be a secular punishment amounting to an Outlawry or Banishment as Erastus would have it or the chiefe act of Ecclesiasticall Power the Power of the Spirituall Sword of the Church cutting from the visible communion thereof such as are lawfully presumed to be cut off from the invisible by sin For if there be a visible Society of the Church founded by God without dependence from man there must be in it a visible power to determine who shall be or not be members of it which by consequence is the Soveraign Power in the Society of the Church as the Power of the Sword is in civill Societies But Excommunication in the Synagogue was a temporall punishment such as I said and therefore it is argued that our Lord meant not of that when he said Dic Ecclesiae that terme in the Old Testament being used for the Congregation of Gods people in the quality of a civill Society And therefore when he addeth Let him he unto thee as a Heathen or a publican they say it is manifest that neither Ethnicks nor Publicans were excommunicate out of the Synagogue nor the Excommunicate excluded from the Service of God in the Temple or Synagogue And when our Lord addeth Whatsoever ye binde and loose on earth it is manifest say they in the language of the Jews used among the Talmud Doctors that bound and loose is nothing else but that which is declared to be bound or loose that is prohibited permitted and therefore the effect of the Keyes of the Church which is binding and loosing reaches no further then declaring what was lawfull and what unlawfull as to the Jews by the Law of Moses in point of conscience The first argument that I make against this opinion is drawn from the Power of Baptizing thereby understanding not the Office of ministring but the Right of granting that Sacrament Which we in this state of the Church doe not distinguish because all are born within the pale of the Church and by order thereof baptized infants But may see a necessary ground so to distinguish by S. Paul when he denies that he was sent to baptize but to preach the Gospel 1 Cor. I. 17. whereas the words of our Lord in the Gospel are manifest where he chargeth his Apostles to Preach and Teach all Nations Baptizing them in the Name of the Father Son and Holy Ghost For the Baptizing of all that should turn Christians could not be personally commanded the Apostles but to preach to all Nations and to make Disciples out of all Nations this they might doe to those that might be Baptized by such as they should appoint We must note that it is in the Originall 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 make Disciples as the Syriack truly translates it Commanding first to bring men to be Disciples then to Baptize Now Disciples are those that were after called Christians such as we professe our selves Acts XI 26. those of whom our Lord saith in the Gospel that those that will doe his Fathers will are his Disciples Wherefore they are commanded
inconvenience to imagine that Commanders of Warre should meddle with ordering the Tribe of Levi and the service of the Temple It is not so We are to understand there by the Militia the Companies of Priests that waited on the Service of the Temple the Captains of whom with David divided the Singers as they did the Priests 1 Chron. XXIV 3 6 7. Though elsewhere 1 Chron. XXIII 6. David alone is mentioned to doe it as by whose Power a businesse concerning the state of a Tribe in Israel was put in effect and force So Hezekias and his Princes and all the Synagogue advised about holding the Passeover in the second moneth 2 Chron. XXX 2. that is he advised with the Consistory who are there as in Jer. XXVI 10 11. called the Princes for so the Jews Constitutions in Maimoni in the Title of comming into the Sanctuary ca. IV. teach us to understand it So David and his Princes gave the Gibeonites to wait upon the Levites whereupon they are called Nethinim that is Given Esd VIII 20. where by David and the Princes we must understand by the same reason David and the great Consistory of his time So also Maimoni in the Title Erubin subinit or rather the Talmud Doctors whose credit he followeth tell us that Solomon and his Consistory brought that Constitution into practice concerning what rooms meats may be removed into upon the Sabbath Herewith agrees the practice of Christian Emperors if we consider the style and character of some of their Laws in the Codes by which the rest may be estimated seeing it is not possible to confider all in this abridgement There you shall finde a Law by which the Canons of the Church are inforced and the Governors of Provinces tied to observe and execute them long before the Code of Canons was made by Justinian a Law of the Empire There you shall finde the Audiences of Bishops established and the sentences of them inforced by the Secular arm the authority of them having been in force in the Society of the Church from the beginning as hath been said There you shall finde Laws by which men are judged Hereticks and Schismaticks as they acknowledged the Faith determined by such and such Councels or not as they communicated with such such Bishops or not which what is it but to take the Act of the Church for a Law and to give force to it by the Secular arm Which what prejudice can it import to any Christian State upon the face of the earth For first such Assemblies of the Church at which publick matters are determinable cannot meet but by allowance of the State In particular though the Church hath Right to assemble Councels when that appears the best course for deciding matters in difference yet it cannot be said that the Church was ever able to assemble a generall Councell without the command of Christian Princes after the example of Constantine the Great And this is the State of Religion for the present in Christendome The Power of determining matters of Religion rests as always it did in the respective Churches to be tied by those determinations But the Power to assemble in freedome those judgements which may be capable to conclude the Church must rest in the free agreement of the Soveraignties in Christendome Secondly it hath been cautioned afore that all Soveraign Powers have right to see not only that nothing be done in prejudice to their Estates but also in prejudice to that which is necessary to the salvation of all Christians or that which was from the beginning established in the Church by our Lord and his Apostles Therefore when Councels are assembled neither can they proceed nor conclude so as to oblige the Secular Powers either of Christendome or of their respective Soveraignties but by satisfying them that the determinations which they desire to bring to effect are most agreeable to that which is determined by Divine Right as well as to the Peace of the State And so the objection ceases that by making the Church independent upon the State as to the matter of their Laws and determinations we make two Heads in one Body For seeing there is by this determination no manner of coactive Power in the Church but all in the State for Excommunication constrains but upon supposition that a man resolves to be a Christian there remains but one Head in the Civile Society of every State so absolute over the persons that make the Church that the independent power thereof in Church matters will enable it to do nothing against but suffer all things from the Soveraign And yet so absolute and depending on God alone in Church matters that if a Soveraign professing Christianity should not onely forbid the profession of that Faith or the exercise of those Ordinances which God hath required to be served with but even the exercise of that Ecclesiasticall Power which shall be necessary to preserve the Unity of the Church it must needs be necessary for those that are trusted with the Power of the Church not only to disobey the commands of the Soveraign but to use that Power which their quality in the Society of the Church gives them to provide for the subsistence thereof without the assistance of Secular Powers A thing manifestly supposed by all the Bishops of the Ancient Church in all those Actions wherein they refused to obey their Emperors seduced by Hereticks and to suffer their Churches to be regulated by them to the prejudice of Christianity Particularly in that memorable refusall of Athanasius of Alexandria and Alexander of Constantinople to admit the Heretick Arius to Communion at the instant command of Constantine the Great Which most Christian action whosoever justifies not besides the appearance of favour to such an Heresie he will lay the Church open to the same ruine whensoever the Soveraign Power is seduced by the like And such a difference falling out so that to particular persons it cannot be clear who is in the Right it will be requisite for Christians in a doubtfull case at their utmost perils to adhere to the Guides of the Church against their lawfull Soveraigns though to no further effect then to suffer for the exercise of Christianity and the maintenance of the Society of the Church in Unity Now what strength and force the exercise of the Keys which is the Jurisdiction of the Church necessarily requires from the Secular arm may appear in that this Power hath been and may be inforced by Soveraigns of contrary Religions The first mention of Excommunication among the Jews is as you have seen under Esdras who proceeded by Commission from the King of Persia In the Title of both Codes of Justinian and Theodosius De Judae is Coelicolis you have a Law of the Christian Emperors whereby the Excommunications of the Jews are enacted and enforced by forbidding inferiour powers to make them void And thus was the sentence of the Church against Paulus Samosatenus ratified
would be possible that War might be made upon the Title of Religion alone contrary to the Premises The learned Casaubon once called the Doctrine of Gregory the VII Pope when he undertook to deprive Christian Princes of their Estates because they stood Excommunicate Haeresim Hildebrandinam The Heresie of Pope Hildebrand And not without cause For seeing the foundation of Christianity consisteth in things to be done as well as things to be beleeved and that the summe of that which Christians professe to do consists in bearing Christs Crosse how shall he be other then an Heretick that renounceth the profession of Christs Crosse Or how can he be understood to professe Christs Crosse that holds any thing purchased by the Arms which are born upon the Title of Christianity For as all is his that conquers in lawfull Arms so cannot he be understood to renounce all for Christs Crosse that holds any thing by it which he is bound to maintain with the Title whereby he holds it Thus that Pope is not unjustly called an Heretick by some as Heresie imports a vice of a particular mans minde not a Sect in the Society of the Church seeing it cannot be said that this position is enjoined though suffered in the Church of Rome as it must be said of that Church the Society whereof and the Power which governeth that Society subsisteth by Arms grounded on Christianity Therefore supposing an Ecclesiasticall Power and by consequence a Church constituted by force used upon this ground it would be hard to clear it of Heresie the constitution whereof cannot stand with the profession of Christs Crosse But not to aggravate consequences seeing it is manifest that all errors in Religion overthrow the foundation by consequence but to shew what regret I have to say that which I must not conceal I will advance the onely possible expedient that I can imagine to restore the Unity of the Church among us For that of a Nationall Synod which is most obvious and plausible seems to me unpossible to be used lawfully and effectually both in our case I am not so faintly in love with the Cause which I expose my self to so much offense to maintain as to make a question how the Church of England were to be re-established if right might take place that is by re-estating the Synod thereof in full possession of that right which hereby I have proved that they are outed of onely by force But I speak now upon supposition that there is force on their side that refuse this right upon opinions contrary to the same and with an intent to advance a course by which it may be discerned how farre the Church of England may abate of the right which is denied onely by force for so good a purpose as to reconcile unto it those who may otherwise fall into Churches in name but Schisms indeed And in this case my reason is because those who chalenge the right of a Synod must proceed as authorized to judge between or rather to give Law to all parties Now being divided as we are between Right and force or the opinion of either or both it is not imaginable that either those that think themselves to have Right can or those that think themselves to have force will submit to receive sentence or Law from their adversaries unlesse we think them either no men to change their judgement when they come to have Power on their side or no Christians to acknowledge that to be Right which they are assured is not What remains then to restore peace when no party can yeeld Surely in all bodily diseases those parts and principles and elements of nature which remain untainted must be the means to recover the whole And in this distemper of the Church so much of Christianity as remains commonly acknowledged by all parties rightly husbanded may serve to reunite them in one upon better intelligence And the despair which any party ought to have of reducing the rest to themselves ought to perswade all to condescend to this good husbandry What remains then common to all parts beside the profession of Christianity the Scriptures to agree them about the meaning and consequences of them in matters questionable being that which remains in debate Could I say that all parts acknowledged that which the Church from the beginning every where hath received and used to be agreeable to the Scripture I should think the businesse half done But since it is otherwise we must have recourse to a more remote ground or principle which may serve for a reason to produce those consequences which follow from the said Rule in matters in debate seeing we pretend not to make a Rule without cause And this must be by examining the first motives of Christianity for what reasons we undertake the profession of it which being well rendred and shot home to the mark will not fail either to decide any thing in controversie or to shew that it concerns no mans Christianity that it be decided Now the onely means to bring forth and discharge these reasons to publick satisfaction is an open and free Conference for space of time or persons executed by persons advanced by the severall parties to improve what any man can bring forth to the clearing of any thing in debate and managed by persons chosen for their discretion to keep the debate from wandring till all be said to all points For seeing it must needs appear what are the terms of agreement when all reasons are spent it will be lawfull for those in whom rests the Succession of the Apostles and all claiming under them to consent to estate the Ecclesiasticall Power and the Ministery of Ecclesiasticall Offices upon persons to be agreed upon according to terms agreed And this consent as effectuall to reunite the Church as ever anciently Schisms were lawfully restored to the Church by admitting Bishops Presbyters Deacons and People to communicate in their own ranks and making good all acts done in Separation by subsequent consent not as to God but as to the Church which I have shewed afore was many times done As for those which have used this Power already they shall condescend no further by this agreement but to use that part of it which shall be limited them by the agreement upon an unquestionable title for the future But if our sins be still so powerfull as not to suffer a lawfull course to take place let me admonish those infinite numbers of Christian souls that sigh and groan after the Unity of the Church what means God shews them to discharge the conscience of good Christians to him while the temporall Laws of the State which ought to actuate it doe suspend their Office Which are in effect the persons of those in whom the Succession of the Apostles is vested and the Clergy claiming under them And that generall Law of Christianity for which those things which we insist upon cannot be quitted of sticking to all that
utter ruine Many people are many waters Apoc. XVII 15. but the Gospel is the wine that cometh from the Vine in the Gospel John XV. 1. This wine then mixed with much water that is the Gospel received by much people retaineth not the true relish in the works of them that professe it David saith of himself Psal XVIII 44 45. A people whom I have not known shall serve me At the report of me they will obey me Strangers will lie to me At the report of Davids victories strangers submitted unto him Some of whom neverthelesse were false hearted Subjects This is the case of them that professe Christianity and live not according to it who seem to have learned Machiavels principle to join themselves to that party which they mean to destroy As the multitude that came with the Israelites out of Aegypt upon sight of Gods miracles set them on murmuring against God in their straits Exod. XII 38. Num. XI 4. The cold of winter concenters the heat of the stomack and fortifies digestion So the appearance of persecution fortified the Primitive Christians to digest it But the heat of the air entices forth naturall heat and disposes to putrefaction So the peace of the Church dissolveth the best resolutions for Christianity For as the stomack cannot order and govern that abundance of crude and undigested humours which the weaknesse of naturall heat breeds so neither can the discipline of the Church hold those in compasse that come not to Christianity with so strong a resolution as to suffer for it The cause then of the corruption of discipline is the coming of all sorts to Christianity whether for fashions sake or for hope of advantage which Eusebius hath observed that it was visible in Constantines time As for the Power of the State in Church matters it is ordained for a counterpoison to this mischief to give that force to the discipline of the Church which carnall Christians would not submit to otherwise The Apostles in their time had a power to inflict bodily punishment upon offenders as S. Peter upon Ananias and Saphira S. Paul upon Elymas which in excommunication he cals delivering to Satan because by some plague on the body it appeared that they came within his power by being excommunicate This power it is which the Apostle cals the Rod 1 Cor. IV. 21. and of it his meaning is when he says 2 Cor. X. 6. That he was ready to punish all disobedience when their obedience should be complete To me therfore it seems more then probable which hath been conceived of late that God provided this extraordinary gift expresly for those times when the Church was destitute of the protection of Secular Powers as on the contrary that against the time that this gift ceased he provided the protection of Secular Powers for the maintenance of Christianity These things thus debated it will be worth the considering how by the appointment of God it necessarily comes to passe that the Power of the Church founded upon a very mean and inconsiderable privilege as to the world of assembling for the publick Service of God coms to be of greatest consideration in swaying the weightiest affaires of Christian Kingdomes and Comonwealths And in consequence thereunto not what discretion but what justice there is in those vain discourses which require of the Clergy of such times that meannesse and poverty and contemptible estate and condition of living which our Lord and disciples spent their time in from the beginning Not considering that by the same reason the people of the Church must not continue such as now they are but must return to be such as then they were That the right of the Church cannot be maintained in effect without a Power answerable to the body that is to be governed by it nor that Power maintained without a support proportionable And that Christianity is not necessarily seen in having or not having this or that estate in this world but in using the Power with that meeknesse and charity and uprightnesse the goods of this world with that temperance continence and freedome of heart which Christianity requires Nor is it to be doubted that the Church was poisoned with those riches which the Christianity of the Empire cast upon it But not by having those riches but by the manners of the people which comming into the Church corrupted with the love of them must needs by consequence corrupt the Clergy whom they came so near In fine that the Reformation of the Church in a Christian State consists not in stripping the Church either of Power or Possessions but in providing better Laws for the use of them and the execution of the same You may have observed that in the premises I have declared the Society of the Church to be founded upon a Command from God to all Christians of Communicating in the publick Service of God producing an obligation to God and therefore to the World a Privilege of doing it though the Powers of the World forbid it to be done upon a Law for the condition under which they are admitted to communicate in it Of this Precept or of the obligation and privilege depending upon it I have hitherto made evidence That which remains to make the proof of my purpose complete is to shew that there is a Law given by God for the condition under which men are admitted to cōmunicate with the Church For seeing the execution of this Law must needs be committed to the Church that is to Christians not supposing for the present the Church to be a Society but onely a multitude of Christians nor disputing what part of the Church or what persons in the Church are trusted with the execution thereof in behalf of the Church upon this trust followeth immediately that common Power which constituteth the Society of the Church Which Power because it is founded upon the obligation or the privilege of holding Assemblies for the common Service of God therefore the act wherein it is immediately seen is the voiding of any mans right to communicate in the Offices of Divine Service at the common assemblies of the Church for that purpose I say it is immediately seen in this act when it is complete Otherwise it is to be conceived that as it is exercised so also it may be said to be seen more immediately in all those acts which tend to Excommunication as degrees or steps to it which is the utmost that the Church as the Church can doe being the taking away of a Christians life as to the Church as the greatest works of State Justice are the taking away of the Naturall or Civile beeing of any member of it Seeing then the utmost Power of the Church is used in Excommunication it follows that it is evidenced and seen by Excommunication that is to say that all reasons which shew the Church to be endowed with the Power of Excommunication do shew it to be constituted a Society Community Corporation
or spirituall Commonwealth by the Power of doing it Now the Law which is the condition upon which men are admitted to communicate with the Church is nothing else but the profession of Christianity upon which the Apostles of our Lord were first enabled to constitute Churches by baptizing them whom they should win to be Disciples according to the Commission of our Lord Mat. XXVIII 19. those onely being Disciples which undertook Christianity and therefore were afterwards called Christians being first called Disciples even after their Baptism Now Christianity consisting not onely in beleeving whatsoever our Lord Christ revealed but in the acknowledgement of an obligation to doe whatsoever he commanded it follows that this Law of Christianity consists of all Precepts of things to be beleeved and things to be done which our Lord Christ hath declared to his Church And not in these alone in regard that our Lord hath commanded Christianity not onely to be beleeved but also to be professed at the utmost perill of life and estate Therefore I said that the Law which is the condition of communicating with the Church is the profession of Christianity which entitleth to Baptism This profession seeing it cannot be made but to Christians that know what Christianity is and thereby are able to judge of the profession made how agreeable to Christianity of the person making the profession how sincerely how cordially he does it it followeth that the Power of the Church is committed to them that are trusted to judge of the profession of Christianity every one according to the Interesse which he justly pretendeth in that judgement Therefore is this Power called the Power of the Keys because it openeth the doore to the Communion of all Ordinances of Divine Service in the Church when it findeth the profession both agreeable to Christianity and to the heart life of him that makes it and shuts the same when it findeth things otherwise Therefore is it called the Power of remitting and retaining sinnes because God hath promised the free grace of remission of sins to all that make true profession of Christianity The benefit of which promise as it is good to him that makes such profession by virtue of his own act as to God so by virtue of the act that admits of the same it is good as to the Church Though it cannot be good as to God unlesse it be good also as to the Church by reason of the command of God that every Christian be a member of the Church For if it were morally possible that any man should attain to the knowlege and submit to the obedience of Christianity in such an estate of life and such Society of this World wherein it were not morally possible for him to hold Communion with the Church or those who in behalfe of the Church by the Laws of it are enabled to admit him to the Communion of the same by Baptism I would make no scruple to think that man in the state of salvation without Baptism or the Church And the same is to be said of all those that cannot be admitted to the Communion of the Church without professing or doing something contrary to Christianity which is the case of all that stand excommunicate upon unjust causes so that their Christianity obligeth them to communicate with no part of the true Church For seeing the Unity of the Church requires that he that is excommunicate to one part of the Church be excommunicate to all the Church seeing the Unity of the Whole cannot be preserved unlesse the Whole make good each act of the part which it hath power to doe it follows that he who is excommunicate for an unjust cause cannot with his Christianity communicate with any part of the Church his title to heaven remaining entire But this case ceasing the remission of sins depends upon the Church by reason of the profession of Christianity which as God requires every Christian to make so he enables the Church to admit And this is the Argument for the Power of Excommunication which is drawn from the Power of admitting to Baptism evidenced by divers Scriptures and divers particulars in the Primitive practice of the Church agreeable to the same And truly it was enough to point at some particulars for he that would undertake to produce all that is to be had in the records of the Church to depose for this reason and this right of the Church might easily fill great Volumes with nothing else Neverthelesse I will here adde one particular more because it seems this reason of the right and interesse of the Church is evidently seen in it And it will not require many allegations seeing it is a known Rule of the ancient Church that Clinicks should not be admitted to the Clergy alleged by Cornelius of Rome to Fabius of Antiochia in Eusebius Eccles Hist VI. 43. against Novatianus the Father of the Novatians to shew that he could not be Bishop of Rome in opposition to him being made Presbyter contrary to that Rule What was then the reason of this Rule and what were they that were called Clinicks It is very evident that there were very many in the Primitive times that beleeved Christianity but durst not professe it because it was no prejudice to beleeve it but to professe it so as to be baptized and come under the Discipline of the Church might be a matter of life and death in case of persecution Besides beleeving and not professing that is not pretending to Baptism they avoided the strictnesse of Ecclesiasticall Discipline What should the Church doe in the case of these men when they came to demand their Baptism undertaking the Rule of Christianity Surely as they could not utterly exclude them from the Church that had never offended or failed in that which they had undertook to it so of necessity they must stand at a greater distance to such persons as having their Christianity more in suspition then otherwise Wherefore in danger of death they were not to refuse them Baptism but in case they recovered again it was very reasonable that they which had attained their Baptism onely in consideration of the danger of death and must have given better triall of themselves otherwise before they were admitted should therefore stand so far suspected afterwards as not to be admitted to the Clergy which required a greater proficience in Christianity then that which qualified a man onely for Baptism These then are they which were called Clinici because they were baptized in bed as requiring their Baptism when they found themselves upon the bed of their sicknesse which might be that of their death And this is the reason of the Rule that they should not be admitted to the Clergy And by this reason the right and interesse of the Church is evident in admitting the profession of Christianity in those that thereby demanded to be admitted to Baptism In the next argument drawn from the Discipline of Penance it may be
thought that I make it a difficult task to prove the Power of Excommunication to belong to the Church when I premise to that purpose an assumption so hard to beleeve as this is that the Church by the discipline of the Apostles as well as by the practice and Rules of the Primitive times was not bound to re-admit to the Communion of the Church those that had fallen from their Christianity by sins most destructive to the same But it is to be considered that to the validity of this argument it is onely requisite to shew that those that had fallen were to sue to be admitted to Penance in the first place that upon satisfaction given of the sincerity of their resolution towards Christianity they might be readmitted to the Communion of the Church All which supposeth that before such satisfaction given they had forfeited the same And the argument being effectuall upon these terms must needs convince so much the more if it can further appear that in case of the most hainous offenses it was in the disposition of the Church to readmit them to Communion or not Adde then to the evidence hereof the example of Marcion Father of the Marcionites in the beginning of his Heresie in Epiphanius who being put out of the Church and denied Penance by his own Father a Bishop of great piety and zeal in Pontus because professing continence he had corrupted a Virgin and afterwards at Rome because of the Rule by which the whole Church subsisteth to make good the acts of all parts thereof within the Power of those parts unlesse voided by superiours fell hereupon to set up his Heresie And truly so rigid a position as that of the Novatians if it be considered aright could very hardly have found any fellows if it had been unheard of in the Church But though the Montanists were rejected at Rome as to the point of receiving Adulterers seeing yet the question remained concerning Apostates so doubtfull as to give Novatianus a party in it what can be more manifest then that they had the pretense of Apostolicall discipline and the Scriptures to set off their Schism with A thing still more evident because that from the relation of that which passed between Cornelius of Rome and Fabius of Antiochia in Eusebibius Eccles Hist VI. 43 44. it appeareth that the Church of Antiochia remained for a time in suspense whether to acknowledge Cornelius or Novatianus for the right Bishop Whereupon the Bishops of the East writing to Julius of Rome from a Councell held at Antiochia in Sozomenus Eccles Hist III. 8. doe reckon it as a motive to perswade him not to interpose in the cause of Athanasius deposed by the Councell held there afore that they also had formerly done the like in the case of Novatianus And by this eminent instance we learn how much the Unity of the Church is to be preferred before Discipline The name of Saints and the like in the Writings of the Apostles is convertible with that of Christians being given to all the members of those Churches to which they addresse their Epistles Though it be manifest by those very Epistles that as our Saviour had foretold so were those Churches nets that held both good and bad fish floors that had both corn and chaffe What property of speech is there then to make good the language of the Apostles Surely if the Church be a visible Society of men subsisting not by the nature of the persons but by institution and appointment of voluntary acts capable to qualifie them upon whom they passe then upon the constitution of members of the same there must needs accrue unto them qualities and denominations correspondent to the acts upon which they arise Now the profession of Christianity is not the proper and essentiall act of it because it may be feigned and fruitlesse but it is a sign to ground a reasonable presumption upon that the person is such as he is thereupon presumed to be But being admitted to the Communion of the Church upon this presumption he purchases thereupon a Right to be taken for such as those are to be so long as he continueth in the same Now if the discipline of Christianity could be held up together with the Unity of the Church then must it be understood that the Church is commanded to exact it of all members of the Church upon the same obligation as it is commanded all Christians for their souls health But though it be absolutely necessary to the salvation of Christians to live as Christians yet it is not so necessary for any Christian to procure that another Christian doe it therefore is the care of it commanded the Church or whosoever is to have that care on behalf of the Church so far as it may be usefull to procure the generall good of the Church And surely the effect and benefit of this discipline was invaluable both to those that passed through it and to the confirmation of the Church But when a person of eminence must be made desperate by refusing to readmit him to the Church which perhaps was the case with S. Paul towards the incestuous person at Corinth whom S. Chrysostome and Theodoret take to be a person qualified in that Church as I have shewed in the Apostolicall Form of Divine Service p. 119. and so capable to lead a party after him or when the multitude and equality of offenders takes away the benefit of example and teaches them to pardon themselves by making a Church of themselves otherwise which if S. Augustine had not said it we might have gathered to have been the case after the Persecution of Decius under Cornelius and S. Cyprian without doubt the losse of it is a mischief nothing comparable to that which would follow by dissolving the Unity of the Church And if so near the source of Christianity much were abated what shall we think must be abated when so much water is mingled with the wine of the Gospel by admitting good and bad to the mariage of the Lamb Neither is it my meaning to determine precisely how far the Church may or must abate yet thus much I will inferre for a consequence that as always there was a difference between the right of Communion with the Visible Church and invisible Communion with the Church of the first-born which is the right and title to life everlasting as between the profession and performance of Christianity so seeing the condition of Communion with the Church is still released and inlarged more and more to retain Unity in corrupt Christianity the condition of communion with God remaining always the same the Visible communion of the Church is always a presumption of invisible Christianity because always necessary to it though not sufficient alone and therefore though not always a reasonable presumption because so much difference between the condition of visible and invisible yet always a legall presumption effectually qualifying more Christians as to the Society of the
is a sin unto death saith the Apostle 1 John V. 16. I say not that ye pray for it This is commonly understood of denying Gods truth against that light which convinceth the conscience Which if it were true the Apostles precept could never come into practice seeing no man can know unlesse by Revelation against what light his Neighbour sinneth But the Novatians at the Councell of Nice as Socrates and Sozomenus both report Eccles Hist I. 7. I. 23. answering Constantine that they refused Penance onely to those that sinned the sin unto death doe give us to understand that S. John was understood by the Church not to command that Apostates be admitted to Penance And so also Tertullian in many places of his Book de Pudicit as cap. XIV argueth from this place that Penance was not to be granted to Adulterers Which sheweth that the Church understood the place in the same sense though it admitted not his consequence So also Origen in Mat. XVIII 18. Tract VII I was long doubtful of the truth of this Interpretation because the Apostle premising If any man see his brother sin a sin not unto death let him ask of God seems to speak of private Prayers of particular persons But the words of S. James V. 16. have cleared me of this doubt Confesse your sins one to another saith he and pray for one another that ye may be healed In which words I make no doubt but he speaketh of publique Penance For having premised that the Presbyters be sent for to the sick that they confesse their sins to the Presbyters that they pray for them anointing them with oil that their sins may be forgiven them to shew neverthelesse that according to the custome aforesaid in case they recovered they were to stand bound to Penance he addeth Confesse your sins to one another to signifie that this Confession and Penance remained due before the Church as we understand by the XII Canon of Nice that the practice was so long afterwards And this is proved by the precept of both Apostles to pray for one another For it is manifest that there were two means to obtain remission of sins in this case the Humiliation which the Church prescribed and the Penitent performed and the Prayers of the Church Which S. John prescribeth not to be granted to Apostates The very same is the meaning of the Apostle to the Hebrews VI. 6. when he pronounceth it unpossible that those that fall away be renued again to Repentance For as they that stood for Baptisme when they were catechized in Christianity were properly said 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to be instructed or dedicated to Repentance because of the Repentance from dead works which they professed so they that forfeited their Christianity by violating the contract of Baptisme are no lesse properly said 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to be renewed instructed and dedicated again to Repentance And the Apostles reason agrees For because the earth that receives rain and renders no fruit is near the curse therefore the Church will not easily beleeve that such a one shall lightly obtain of God the grace to become a sincere Christian And therefore the Apostle says not that it is unpossible that such a one should repent but that he should be instructed again to repentance to wit by the Church As the Novatians answered Constantine that they remitted such persons to God not prejudicing their salvation but not admitting them to the means of Reconciliation by the Church And herewith agreeth the example of Esau used by the Apostle again XII 17. saying that he found not place of Repentance alluding to that roome in the Church where Penitents were placed apart by themselves And again X. 26. the allusion which he maketh to the custome under the Law understood by the Hebrews to whom he writeth consisteth in this that as there was no sacrifice to be made for Apostates though for Ethnicks for this was the use of the Law as we understand by Moses Maimoni in the Title of Dressing Oblations cap. III. num 3 5. So the Christian Sacrifice of the Prayers of the Church was not to be offered for those that had renounced Christianity If it be thus you will ask What was the fault of the Novatians seeing they understood this Text right And my answer is that neverthelesse they are Hereticks extending the name of Hereticks to those whom now we call Schismaticks as I have shewed you in the little Discourse pag. 197. that it is often used For S. John as he commands not so he forbids not that they be admitted to Penance the other Apostle tels them it is impossible to let them know that they must not expect it But neither says that the Church could not give it When therefore the Church to preserve Unity was necessitated to grant it as we see by S. Cyprian the Novatians were no lesse Schismaticks in making separation upon the quarrell though perhaps the reason be not urged by their adversaries then if they had understood the Text amisse The Unity of the Church being of more moment then much understanding in the Scriptures And so perhaps S. Pauls words will belong to this purpose 1 Tim. 5. 19. as not onely the Socinians of late but Pacianus among the Ancients Paraen ad Poenitentiam and Matthaeus Galenus among modern Writers do expound them To wit that when he saith Lay hands suddenly on no men nor partake of other mens sins he leaves it to Timothies judgement whom to admit whom not to admit to Penance Because this Blessing with Imposition of hands was not the mark of Absolution but of admission to Penance as well as the ceremony of Ordinations And though this Text of the Apostle be understood in particular of Ordinations yet by the same reason which he allegeth it is to be extended to all Acts of the Church that are blessed by the Prayers of the Church with Imposition of Hands For if Timothy by Imposing hands upon those whom he Ordains become accessary to their sins if they be unfit to be Ordained by the same reason if he Impose Hands that is grant Penance unto them that are not fit for it he becomes accessory to the sins which they commit by being admitted to it Imposition of Hands being nothing else but a ceremony of that Benediction which signifieth that those Acts to which it is granted are allowed and authorized by the publique Power of the Church So Imposition of Hands in Confirmation is the admission of him that is confirmed to the communion of the Visible Church In Penance the restoring of him In Ordination to the exercise of this or that function in the Church Prayer over the sick which the Apostle commands James V. 14. and our Lord in the Gospel made with Imposition of Hands signified the admitting of the sick to Penance And it is said that in some Eastern Churches to this day mariages are blessed with Imposition of Hands in signification that the Church
alloweth of them which as it was alwayes the right of the Church to doe as I shall observe in another place so it appeareth so to be in that mariage was never celebrated among Christians without the Prayers of the Church And this observation I insist upon the more chearfully because it much strengtheneth the argument which the Church maketh for the Baptism of Infants from the Act of our Saviour in the Gospel when he blessed the Infants with Imposition of Hands For if all Imposition of Hands be an act of the publique Power of the Church allowing that which is done with it then can this Imposition of Hands signifie no lesse then that those to whom our Lord granteth it belong to his Kingdome of the Visible Church One little objection there lies against this from the incestuous person at Corinth whom S. Paul in his second Epistle seems to readmit to communion his crime being as deep as Adultery which we say the rigor of Apostolicall Discipline admitted not to Penance To which I have divers things to answer That this cannot be objected but by him that acknowledges that he was excommunicate by the former Epistle That Tertullian in his Book de Pudicitiâ disputes at large that it is not the same case which is spoken of in both Epistles That the crime here specified perhaps is not of the number of those which from the beginning were excluded from Penance But waving all this as I excepted two cases in which men were baptized without regular triall so supposing the Rule to take hold in this case it is no inconvenience to grant that S. Paul might wave the rigor of Discipline so setled as supposing there might be cause to wave it If this opinion seem new my purpose requires but these two Points that the Penance practised by the ancient Church supposed Excommunication which it only abateth and that it was instituted by the Apostles and for that there is enough said I suppose even to them that beleeve not that the Apostles excluded any kinde of crimes from Penance Besides that of S. Paul blaming the Corinthians that they were puffed up and had not rather lamented that he that had done the evil might be put from among them 1 Cor. V. 2. And again fearing that when he returned he should be forced to lament many 2 Cor. XII 21. Which if we compare with the Primitive solemnity of Excommunication which by the constitutions of the Apostles II. 16. and other ways we understand was to put the person out of the Church doors with mourning it will appear that Epiphanius is in the right in expounding this later Text to this purpose Haer. LIX num 5. The power of Excommunication then by all this is no more then the necessary consequence of the Power of admitting to Communion by Baptism Which if it imply a contract with the Church to live according to the rule of Christianity then it is forfeit to him that evidently does that which cannot stand with that rule and the Church not tied to restore it but as the person can give satisfaction to observe it for the future Now I will make short work with Erastus his long labour to prove that there is no Excommunication commanded by the Law I yeeld it And make a consequence which will be thought a strange one But I have it from the speculation of Origen in Levit Hom. XI and others why the Church should onely be inabled to Excommunicate whereas the Synagogue was inabled to put to death From the observation of S. Augustine Quaest in Deuteronom V. 38. de Fide Operibus cap. VI. and others that Excommunication in the Church is the same that the power of life and death in the Synagogue My argument is then that the Church is to have the power of Excommunication because the Synagogue had the power of life and death And the reason of the consequence this Because as the Law being the condition of the Covenant by which the benefit of the Commonwealth of Israel was due inabled to put to death such as destroyed it So the Gospel being the condition of the Covenant that makes men denizons of the spirituall Jerusalem must inable to put them from the society thereof that forfeited it It is not my intent hereby to say that there was no Excommunication under the Law For I doe beleeve that we have mention of it in Ezra X. 8. grounded if I mistake not upon the Commission of the King of Persia recorded Ezr. VII 26. for that which is here called rooting out seems to be the same that is called in the other place dividing from the Synagogue of the Captives Being indeed a kinde of temporall Outlawry to which is joined confiscation of Goods For so saith Luther truly that the greater Excommunication among Christians is every where a temporall punishment to wit in regard of some temporall punishment attending it in Christian States which in Christianity is accidentall by Act of those States in Judaisme essentiall so long as those temporall advantages which were the essentiall condition of the Law were not forfeited And this without doubt is the same punishment which the Gospels call putting out of the Synagogue Though I cannot say so peremptory for the temporall effects of it Which severall Soveraigns could easily limit to severall terms For the right that Ezra might have to introduce this penalty is clear by the Law of Deut. XVII 12. which inabling to put them to death that obeyed not the Synagogue inabled to Excommunicate to Banish to Outlaw them much more But as we see the Romanes allowed them not the power of life and death which the Persians granted them so I am not to grant that putting out of the Synagogue in the Gospel implieth the extinguishing of the civill being of any Jew The Talmud Doctors say that those that were under the greater Excommunication were to dwell in a cotage alone and to have meat and drink brought them till they died Arba Turim or Shulchan Auroh in Jore Dea Hilcoth Niddui Voherem A speculation sutable to their condition in their dispersions which no man is bound to beleeve how far it was in force and practice But suppose the Synagogue in the same condition with the Church afore Constantine injoying no privilege but to serve God according to the Law as the Church according to the Gospel And then as the Synagogue must always have power to excommunicate which had power to put to death so I say is the Church inabled by our Lord to doe what I have shewed the Apostles did doe by Mat. XVIII 18. I yeeld that the terms of binding and loosing are used by the Jews to signifie the declaring of what is prohibited and permitted by the Law But I yeeld not that it can be so understood here because the ground of this declaration ceaseth under the Gospel being derived from the sixe hundreth and thirteen Precepts of the Law and from the power
of the Priests and Doctors to determine all cases which the Law had not determined in dependence upon the great Consistory at Jerusalem by the Law of Deut. XVII 12. which Precepts and which Power being voided by the Gospel can any man think that the Power of binding and loosing here given the Church is to be understood of it Besides it is in the promise made to S. Peter Mat. XVI 19. said expresly to be the act of the Power of the Keys And what is that Is it not an expression manifestly borrowed from that which is said to Eliakim sonne of Hilkiah Es XXII 23. I will give thee the Keys of the House of David Whereupon our Lord Apoc. III. 7. is said to have the Key of David that is of the House of David whereby the Apostles under our Lord are made Stewards of the Church as Eliakim of the Court to admit and exclude whom he pleased And so it is manifest that the Power of the Keys given S. Peter Mat. XVI 19. as the Church Mat. XVIII 18. is that power which you have seen practised under the Apostles of admitting to and excluding from the Church by Baptism and Penance So S. Cyprian expresly understandeth the Power of the Keys to consist in Baptizing Ep. LXXIII And of Penance that which followeth is an expresse argument as I have observed p. 129. of that short Discourse For having said whatsoever ye binde he addeth immediately again I say to you that if two of you agree to ask any thing it shall be done you by my Father in heaven For the means of pardon being the Humiliation of the Penitent injoined by the Church and joined with the prayers thereof as hath been said the consequence of our Saviours discourse first of informing the Church then of binding and loosing lastly of granting the prayers of the Church shews that he speaks of those prayers which should be made in behalf of such as were bound for not hearing the Church And hereby we see how binding loosing of sins is attributed to the Keys of the Church Which being made a Visible Society by the power of holding Assemblies to which no man is to be admitted till there be just presumption that he is of the heavenly Jerusalem that is above As the power of judging who is and who is not thus qualified presupposes a profession so that an Instruction obliging the obedience of them which seek remission of sinnes by the Gospel and therefore confidently assuring it to them which conform themselves In a word because admitting to and excluding from the Church is or ought to be a just and lawfull presumption of admitting to or excluding from heaven it is morally and legally the same Act that intitleth to heaven and to the Church that maketh an heir of life everlasting and a Christian because he that obeyeth the Church in submitting to the Gospel is as certainly a member of the invisible as of the visible Church Herewith agree the words of our Lord Let him be unto thee as a Heathen and a Publican Not as if Heathens could be excommunicate the Synagogue who never were of it or as if the Jews then durst excommunicate Publicanes that levied Taxes for the Romanes But because by their usage of Publicanes and Gentiles it was proper for our Lord to signifie how he would have Christians to use the excommunicate there being no reason why he can be thought by these words to regulate the conversation of the Jews in that estate so long as the Law stood but to give his Church Rules to last till the worlds end The Jews then abhorred the company not onely of Idolaters to testifie how much they abhorred Idols and to maintain the people in detestation of them by ceremonies brought in by the Guides of the Synagogue for that purpose but all those that conversed with Idolaters For this cause we see they murmure against our Lord for eating with Publicans they wash when they come from market where commonly they conversed with Gentiles and which is strange such as Cornelius was being allowed to dwell among them by the Law professing one God and taking upon them the precepts of the sons of Noe yet are the converted Jews scandalized at S. Peter for eating with Cornelius Acts XI 2. These Rules are made void by the Gospel For S. Paul tells the Corinthians expresly that they are not to forbear the company of Gentiles for those sinnes which their Profession imported but if a Christian live in any of those Heathen vices with him they are not so much as to eate 1 Cor. V. 11. to wit as it followeth immediately being condemned by the Church upon such a cause For saith he What have I to doe to judge them that are without do not ye judge those that are within But those that are without God judgeth And ye shall take the evill man from among you That is are not you by the power you have of judging those that are within to take away him that hath done evill leaving to God to judge those without Here the case is plain there is power in the Church to judge and take away offenders Of which power the Apostle speaks Tit. III. 9. when he says that Hereticks are condemned of themselves if we follow S. Hieromes exposition which seems unquestionable For experience convinces that most Hereticks think themselves in the right so farre they are from condemning themselves in their consciences But they condemne themselves by cutting of themselves from the Church which other sinners are condemned to by the Church Neither is it any thing else then Excommunication which the Apostle signifieth by delivering to Satan 1 Cor. V. 6. saving that he expresseth an extraordinary effect that followed it in the Apostles time to wit that those which were put out of the Church became visibly subject to Satan inflicting Plagues and diseases on their bodies which might reduce them to repentance which the Apostle calleth the destruction of the flesh that the spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus As he saith of Hymenaeus and Philetus 1 Tim. I. 21. whom I have delivered to Satan that they may learn not to blaspheme For it is not to be doubted that the Apostles had power like that which S. Peter exercised on Ananias and Sapphira thus to punish those that opposed them as S. Paul divers times intimates in the Texts which I have quoted in another place provided by God as the rest of miraculous Graces to evidence his presence in the Church These particulars which I huddle up together by the way might have been drawn out into severall arguments but I content my self with the consequence by which the Patent of this Power in the Gospel is cleared upon which Patent all the Power of the Church is grounded That is if Christians are onely to abstain from eating with excommunicate persons as Jews did with Publicanes and Gentiles then Excommunication is to be understood when
our Lord saith Let him be to thee as a Heathen and a Publicane As for that which is said that the excommunicate among the Jews were not excluded either Temple or Synagogue therefore it was a secular punishment It is a mistake That which the Jews call 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 was not Excommunication no more then that which the Constitutions of the Apostles call 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which is the same being but a step to it like that which is now commonly called the lesse Excommunication And therefore he that was under this censure among the Jews was but in part removed from the communion as well of sacred as civill society For it hath been shewed very learnedly in the Book of the Power of the Keyes that hee stood as much removed from the one as from the other because that as well in the Synagogue as at home no man was to come within his four cubits But when the Talmud Doctors determine that the excommunicate dwell in a Cotage apart and have sustenance brought him such a one was past comming into the Temple or Synagogue And so I suppose was he that was put out of the Synagogue for acknowledging our Lord Christ to be a true Prophet John IX 35. For they which afterwards were wont to curse all his followers in their Synagogues as Justin Martyr Dial. cum Tryph. and Epiphanius Haer. XXX tell us that they did in their time are not like to endure in their society whether sacred or civill him that in their interpretation was fallen from Moses And thus is the Power of the Keys clearly grounded upon this Charter of the Gospel and all the Right of the Church upon it Onely one Objection yet remains which to me hath always seemed very difficult for it is manifest that our Lord speaketh here of matters of interesse between party and party when he saith If thy brother offend thee and it may justly seem strange that our Lord should give the Church power to excommunicate those that will not stand to the sentence of the Church in such matters But so it is The Jews in their dispersions were fain to have recourse to this penalty to inforce the Jurisdiction of their own Bodies lest if causes should be carried thence before Heathen Courts Gods name should be blasphemed and the Gentiles scandalized at his people saying See what peace and right there is among those that professe the true God! For the same causes our Lord here estateth the same Power upon the Church Whereof I cannot give a more sufficient and effectuall argument then by shewing that it was in use under the Apostles Though the place out of which I shall shew this is hitherto otherwise understood because men consider not that it is not against Christianity that there be severall seats for severall ranks and dignities of the world in the Church And therefore that it is not that which the Apostle findes fault with James II. 1. when he forbids them to have the Faith of God with respect of persons But the Synagogue which he speaketh of in the next words is to be understood of the Court where they judged the causes and differences between members of the Church For that the Jews were wont to keep Court in their Synagogues we learn not onely by the Talmud Doctors Maimoni by name in the Title of Oaths cap. IX where he speaketh particularly of the case of an Oath made in the Synagogue when the Court sate there but by that which we finde in the New Testament Mat. X. 17. XXIII 34. Mar. XIII 9. Acts XXII 19. XXVI 11. as wel as in Epiphanius Haer. XXX that they used to scourge in their Synagogues To wit where sentence was given there justice was executed Wherefore being converted to Christianity they held the same course as appears by the words of the Apostle that follow Doe ye not make a difference among your selves and are become Judges of evill thoughts and again If ye accept persons ye commit sin being reproved by the Law By what Law but by that which saith Thou shalt not accept persons in judgement Lev. XIX 15. For the execution of which Law it is expresly provided by the Jews Constitutions in Maimoni Sanedrin ca. XXI that when a poor man and a Rich plead together the Rich shall not be bid to sit down and the poor stand or sit in a worse place but both sit or both stand which you see is the particular for which the Apostle charges them to have the Faith of Christ with respect of persons That is to shew favour in the causes of Christians according to their persons The same course we may well presume was setled by the Apostles at Corinth by the blame S. Paul charges them with for going to Law before Infidels 1 Cor. VI. 1 2. For how should he blame them for doing that which they had not order before not to doe And therefore if our Lord in this place give the Church power to excommunicate those that stand not to the sentence of the Church much more those that violate the Christianity which they have professed And this is also here expressed when from the particular he goes to the generall saying Whatsoever ye binde on earth giving thereby the same power to the Church here which he gave to S. Peter Mat. XVI 19. and to the Apostles John XX. 22. And so we have here two Heads of the causes of Excommunication The first of such things as concern the conscience and salvation of particular Christians when they commit such sins as destroy Christianity The second of such as concern the community of the Church and the unity thereof in which not the act but the contumacy the not hearing of the Church makes them subject to this sentence It is not my purpose to say that these nice reasons are to be the Title upon which the right of the Church to this power standeth or falleth But that being in possession of it upon a Title as old as Christianity and demonstrable by the same evidence it cannot be ejected out of this possession by any thing in the Scripture when it is rightly understood One objection there is more in consequence to this last reason that if the Church have power to sentence civile causes of Christians and by Excommunication to inforce that sentence when States professe Christianity all civill Laws will cease and all Judicatories be resolved into one Consistory of the Church The answer to this I deferre till I come to shew the Right of the States that professe Christianity in Church matters where it will easily appear how this inconvenience ceaseth In the mean time the Soveraign power of the Church consisting in the Sword of Excommunication upon which the Society thereof is founded it is necessarily manifest that this power is not lost to the Church nor forfeit to the State that professes Christianity and undertakes the protection of the Church For the Church and civill Societies
must needs remain distinct bodies when the Church is ingraffed into the State and the same Christians members of both in regard of the Relations Rights and Obligations which in the same persons remain distinct according to the distinct Societies and qualities of severall persons in the same Therefore as I said in the beginning that no Christian as a Christian can challenge any temporall Right by his Christianity which the State wherein he is called to be a Christian giveth him not So on the other side no man by his rank in any State is invested with any power proceeding from the foundation of the Church as it is the Church So that which is true in the parts holds in the whole The Church is indowed with no temporall Right therefore the State is indowed with no Ecclesiasticall Right though it hath great Right in Ecclesiasticall matters of which in due time For all this Right supposeth the Church already established by that power on which it standeth and so must maintain it upon the same terms which it findeth The homage which the Church paieth to God for the protection of the State is not to betray the Right founded on the expresse Charter of God to Powers subsisting by the works of his mediate Providence But to subdue subjects to that obedience for conscience which the State exacteth by force For there is necessarily this difference between the principles upon which the Church and civill Communities subsist The Charter of the one is revealed by Grace The others stand upon the Laws of Nature and Nations and acts which Providence inables men to doe agreeable to the same Therefore as no State stands by the Gospel so no right setled by the Gospel can belong to any State or person as a member of any State Besides Kingdomes and States have their severall bounds Many Soveraignties are contained in Christendom whereas the Church is by Gods Ordinance one Visible Society of all Christians Now it is manifest first that there are some things which equally concern the whole Church and all parts of it Secondly that in things which concern the whole Church no part thereof in any State or Kingdome can be concluded by that State or Kingdome Again the Apostles Rule is 1 Cor. VII 24. that every man abide in the State wherein he is called to be a Christian And this proves that no Christian can challenge any temporall right by his Christianity because States subsist before they are Christian Therefore it proves also that no State or member of it is by being such endowed with any Right grounded on the constitution of the Church And therefore seeing the Church subsisted three hundreth years before any State professed Christianity whatsoever Rights it used during that time manifestly it ought therefore still to use and enjoy this being the most pertinent evidence to shew the bounds of it In particular as to the Power of the Keys and Excommunication the act of it seeing the intent of it is to admit into the Visible Society of the Church upon presumption that by the right use of it sinne is taken away and the person admitted to the invisible Society of life everlasting and seeing no Common-wealth no quality in any pretendeth to take away sinne or to judge in whom it is taken away it followeth that no man whatsoever by virtue of any rank in any State is qualified to manage this Power or can presume so to doe CHAP. II. That the whole Bodies of Christians contained in severall Cities and the Territories of them make severall Churches depending upon the Churches of greater Cities Therefore the People is not endowed with the Chief Power in any Church HAving seen thus farre upon what Patent the community of the Church is established and the Power thereof founded it will be necessary farther to dispute in what Hands this Power is deposited by the Apostles and what persons are trusted with it Which point before it be voided we can neither determine what Form of Government God hath ordained in his Church nor how it may be exercised in Christian States without crossing the Right which they challenge in Church matters The Presbyterians having designed severall Presbyteries for the Government of severall Congregations that assemble together for the service of God and having cried up this design for the Throne of Christ the new Jerusalem and the Kingdome of God seeing there is no question made that where there is a Presbytery there is a Church and where there is a Church there is the Power of the Keyes which God hath endowed his Church with seem to have given those of the Congregations occasion to inferre that every Congregation that assembles for the common Service of God is by consequence to have the Power of the Keys to excommunicate whereunto adding another principle that the chief Power of every Congregation is in the People it follows that they are all absolute without dependence on the rest of the Church But all this while both run away with a presumption for which they can shew us never a title or syllable of evidence in all the Scriptures For Presbyters and Presbyteries they may shew us in the Scriptures and no grandmercy unlesse they can shew us how to understand them better then they doe But that every congregation that assembles together to serve God in common should have a company of Presbyters for the Government of it is a thing so contrary to all the Intelligence we have concerning the State of the Church either under the Apostles themselves by the Scriptures or any Primitive Records of the Church or in the succeeding ages of the Church that they must demand of all men to renounce common sense and all Faith of Historicall as well as Divine Truth before they can beleeve it Whereas by the same evidence by which the rest of Christianity is conveyed and commended unto us that is by the Scriptures interpreted by the Originall and universall practise of the Church it will appear that the Apostles planting Christianity not onely in those Cities where they preached most because there the harvest was greatest but in the Countries adjoining which by the custome of all civile Nations every where resort to their Cities for Justice designed the severall Bodies of Christians that should be found abiding in severall Cities and the Territories of the same to make severall Churches the Government whereof they planted in those Cities both for themselves and for the Countries that resorted unto them And as in the civile Government of all civile people particular Cities depend upon Mother Cities Heads of Provinces Governments or Soveraignties so the Churches of particular Cities to depend upon the Churches of those Mother Cities that by the union and correspondence of those Churches drawing along with them all the Churches under them the unity of the whole Church consisting of them all might be established and entertained This is the effect of that observation which I advanced in the little
Discourse p. 16. that whereas it is said Acts XIV 23. that Paul and Barnabas ordained Presbyters in every Church S. Paul saith that he left Titus in Crete to ordain Presbyters in every City Tit. I. 5. and again Acts XVI 4. As they passed by the Cities they delivered unto them the decrees determined by the Apostles and Presbyters at Jerusalem The Cities of which he had said before that they ordained Presbyters in every Church planted in those Cities as Titus in every City So nice as this evidence may seem to those that consider not the state of the whole Church when it shall appear to any man as to all that consider with their eyes open it must appear that always every where all congregations of Christians remaining in the Country adjoining to any City made one Church with the Christians of that City common sense will inforce that the Apostles designe was the modell from which this form was copied out in all parts of the Church To which purpose we are to consider in the next place an excellent Observation of that pious learned Prelate the L. Primate of Ireland published in a little Discourse of the Originall of Bishops upon the seven Churches of Asia to which S. Iohn is commanded to direct that Epistle contained in the II III Chapters of the Apocalypse The observation consists in this that the seven Cities wherein those seven Churches are said to be were seven chief Cities or Mother Cities of the Province of Asia whereby it is manifest that the chief Churches upon which inferiour Churches were to depend were planted in the chief Mother Cities to which the Countries about them resorted for Justice For certainly no man will offer such violence to his own common sense as to say that there were at the time of writing this Epistle but seven Congregations of Christians in that Province where S. Paul first and after him S. John had taken such pains And if more Congregations but onely seven Churches for what reason but because many Congregations make but one Church when they are under the City in which that Church is planted There hath been indeed an Objection made from the words of this Epistle when it is said at the end of the addresse to every particular Church He that hath eares to hear let him hear what the Spirit saith to the Churches The addresse beginning always thus To the Church of Ephesus thus saith the Spirit To the Church of Smyrna thus saith the Spirit and so of the rest The objection pretendeth that by these words it appears that there were in Ephesus for example many Churches constituting the Presbytery of that City which is there called the Church of Ephesus For if this were so I would acknowledge that this argument were overthrown and that Churches were not convertible with Cities but that many Churches are here called the Church of Ephesus because the Seat of the Presbytery was at Ephesus according to the Presbyterian Design But this objection both carries with it an answer to discover the mistake upon which it is grounded and draws after in an effectuall argument to choke the opinion which it supports For is not S. John expresly commanded Apoc. I. 11. to write and send one letter to all those seven Churches And can any man be so senslesse as when it is said What the Spirit saith to the Churches to understand severall Churches of Ephesus Smyrna and the rest and not the seven Churches to which the one letter is directed And therefore the argument stands good that in these seven Cities there were but seven Churches and that the letter is directed to these Mother Churches planted in the Mother Cities because inferiour Cities receiving their Christianity from them were to depend upon them for the regulating of all things concerning the exercise of it As the Originall and Universall condition and State of the Church convinces Now the argument which this objection and the answer draws after it is this That in all the New Testament you shall never finde any mention of severall Churches in any City as Rome Ephesus Antiochia Jerusalem But when there is speech of any Province be it never so small you shall finde mention of a plurall number of Churches in it For of the Churches of Asia Syria Cilicia Macedonia Achaia Galatia Judaea and Samaria and of the Hebrews in their dispersions we finde expresse mention upon severall occasions Acts IX 31. VIII 5 40. XV. 41. 1 Cor. XVI 1. 2 Cor. VIII 2. 1 Thessal II. 14. Apoc. I. 11. II. 7 11 17 29. III. 6 13 22. Though Samaria among the rest were a Province of no great extent yet for example you have in that Province the City whereof Simon Magus was called Gittha saith Epiphan Haer. XXI now a Village but in those days a City saith he of which Acts VIII 5. And Philip went down to a City of Samaria not the City as we translate it and Caesarea which Ioseph shews us was in that Province XXI 7. Now tell me what reason can be given for this by any man that will pretend to understand either Scripture or any record of learning but that Churches are convertible with Cities For had there been many Churches within the City of Ephesus for example of parallel power and privilege making up one Classis or Presbytery or whatsoever new name can be given a new thing without the least syllable of example from the Apostles to Calvin must not these have been called the Churches not the Church of Ephesus I come now to a very expresse mark of this dependence during the time and in the actions of the Apostles and therefore by their Order acknowledged not onely by themselves but by all imploied by them in the planting of the Churches And it is the going of Paul and Barnabas to Jerusalem in behalf of the Churches of Syria and Cilicia troubled by some that taught at Antiochia from whence those Churches received their Christianity that Christians are to keep the Law of Moses Acts XIII 1. XV. 1. For were not Paul and Barnabas able to resolve this question at Antiochia Paul especially protesting That he received not the doctrine of the Gospel which he preached from man or by man Gal. I. 1. who is constrained both to the Galatians and elsewhere to oppose his calling as a Bulwark against all that laboured to bring Judaisme into the Church Surely in regard of the thing they were but in regard of authority to the Church they were not Barnabas was imploied by the Apostles to Antiochia who found Christians there but made them a Church by ordering their Assemblies Acts XI 20 24 25 26. And he it was that first brought Saul into that service by his authority from the Apostles Though afterwards both of them were extraordinarily imploied by the Holy Ghost to preach the Gospel and plant Churches Acts XIII 1. All this while the Church could not look upon Saul in the quality and
of Deut. XVII 18. the Jews need not tell us as they doe Maimoni by name Tit. de Syncdrio that they were not bound to observe that in their dispersions for how could there be Consistories for the Jews in all Cities all over the world but this they tell us withall in particular Arba Thurim in the same title Sub init that thereby they hold themselves bound to erect Consistories in the chief Cities of their dispersions In this condition what is the difference between the state of the Synagogue and the Church setting aside that essentiall difference between the Law and the Gospel by which Judaism was confined to one Nation but Christianity had a promise to be received by the Gentiles By reason whereof the Law ceased as it was proper to the Jews and Christians became obliged only to the perpetual Law of God besides a very few positive precepts of our Lord as of Baptism the Eucharist and the Power of the Keys by virtue whereof and by the generall Commission of the Apostles all Ordinances whereby they should regulate the Society of the Church were to be received as the Commandements of God Here is the reason for which it is probable that the Apostles in designing the Government of the Church should follow no other pattern then that which they saw in use by the Law in the Synagogue For the design in both being to maintain the Law of God and the unity of his people in his service saving the difference between them what form should they follow but that which the Law had taught their Fore-fathers But when the effect hereof appears in the first lines of this modell traced by the Apostles and filled up by their Successors it is manifest that these Laws were the pattern but the Order of the Apostles the Act which put it in being and force The Churches of Jerusalem Antiochia Rome and Alexandria no man can deny were planted by the Apostles in person and by their Deputies That they became afterwards Heads of the Churches that lay about them is no more then that which the Consistories planted at Jerusalem or Tiberias and in the chief Cities of the Jews dispersions were to the Synagogues underneath them by virtue of the Law This is therefore the Originall of the dependence of Churches upon the greatest Mother Churches And therefore it is no marvell that Jerusalem once the Mother City of Christianity became afterwards the seat of a Patriarch indeed in remembrance of that privilege but inferiour in dignity and nothing comparable in bounds to the rest because it was none of the greatest and most Capitall Cities The Rule of the Apostles design being this that the greatest Cities should be the Seats of the greatest Churches And that Constantinople when it came afterwards to be a Seat of the Empire was put in the next place to the Chief as it was no act of the Apostles so it is an argument of the Rule by which the rest had been ordered for the same reason As for the other Law of Deu. XVI 18. I know not what could be more agreeable to it then that Rule of the ancient Church which is to be seen not only in those few ancient Canons alledged in the discourse of the Primitive Government of Churches p. 67. but in innumerable passages of Church Writers that Cathedrall Churches and Cities be convertible that is both of the same extent Thus the Epistle of Ignatius to the Romanes is inscribed 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The presidence here expressed argueth the eminence of that Church above the rest of the Churches about it But Clemens directeth his Epistle from the Church of Rome to that of Corinth thus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 whereby we understand that the Country lying under the City belonged to the Church founded in the City and was therefore called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifying that which we now call the Diocese in opposition to the Mother Church That this is the reason of the name 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 appears because Polycarp addresses his Epistle to the Philippians in this style 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 For if the Church of the Philippians dwelt near Philippi then the Country adjoining belonged to the Church of that City This reason therefore was well understood by him that writ the Epistle to the Antiochians in Ignatius his name granting it to be of an age much inferiour to his For he inscribeth it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Signifying thereby that all the Christians of Syria belonged to the Church of Antiochia for which reason Ignatius himself in his Epistle to the Romanes calls himself Bishop of Syria not of Antiochia because being Bishop of the Head City Church the Christians of Syria either belonged to his Church or to the Churches that were under it A thing so necessary to be beleeved that there are many marks in his Epistles to shew that the Churches also of Cilicia belonged to his charge as we saw they did by their foundation in the Apostles time and as the reason of the civile Government required those parts where Paul and Barnabas first preached having continued longest in the Dominion of the Kings of Syria and therefore continuing under the Government that resided at Antiochia And thus are the words of Clemens in his Epistle to the Corinthians fulfilled where he saith that the Apostles having preached the Gospel in Cities and Countries constituted Bishops and Ministers of those that should beleeve to wit according to the Cities and Countries adjoining to them Those marks come from the ancientest Records the Church hath after the writings of the Apostles Of the rest there would be no end if a man would allege them If any man object that it cannot be made to appear how this Rule was ever observed in the Church the extent of Cathedrall Churches being in some Countries so strait in other so large The answer is that it ceaseth not to be a Rule though the execution of it was very different in severall Countries either because not understood so well as it should have been or because the condition of some Countries was not appliable to it so as that of others For the East we have these words of Walafridus Strabo libs de Rebus Ecclesiasticis Fertur in Orientis partibus per singulas Vrbes Praefecturas singulas esse Episcoporum gubernationes Whereby we understand that Cathedrall Churches stood very much thicker in the Eastern parts then in the West For thereupon it became observable to Walafridus In Africk if we look but into the writings of S. Augustine we shall finde hundreds of Bishops resorting to one Councell In Ireland alone S. Patrick is said by Ninius at the first plantation of Christianity to have founded three hundreth threescore and five Bishopricks On the other side in England we see still how many Counties remain in one Diocese of Lincoln and yet if we look into Almain and those mighty foundations of Charles the Great we
they found most proper for their assistance it is manifest that they could have no authority but derived from the Apostles A thing perfectly agreeing with the Custome that had always been among Gods People For all Prophets whom God imploied upon his messages and may therefore properly be called his Apostles as our Lord Christ is called the Apostle of our Profession Heb. III. 1 had their Disciples to wait upon them which is called ministring to them in the language of the Scripture Thus Joshua the Minister of Moses Exod. XXIV 13. Elizeus poured water on the hands of Elias as the Chief of his Scholars that expected a double portion of his spirit 2 Reg. II. 9. III. 11. Thus the Baptist saith he is not worthy to loose or take away our Saviours shooes Mat. III. 11. Mar. I. 7. that is to be his Disciple for by Maimoni in the Title of learning the Law cap. V. we learn that the Disciples of the Jews Doctors were to do that service for their Masters Hereupon saith Christ Luc. XXII 26. I am among you as he that ministreth to wit not as a Master but as a Disciple Thus the chief of our Lords Disciples whom he had chosen from the beginning to be with him receiving his Commission became his Apostles having waited on his Person and by familiar conversation learned his doctrine better then others Whereupon I said in the Primitive Government of Churches p. 3. that to make an Apostle it was requisite to have seen our Lord in the flesh and that he appeared to S. Paul after death to advance him to that rank by this privilege Mar. III. 14. Mat. X. 1 4. And shall we think that the Apostles did not as their Lord and all the Prophets before him had done choose themselves Scholars that by waiting on them might learn their Doctrine and become fit to be imploied under them and after them If we do we shall mis-kenne the most remarkable circumstances of Scripture For we may easily observe that those who are called in the Scriptures Euangelists are such as first waited upon the Apostles as S. Mark upon S. Peter Timothy and S. Luke upon S. Paul Acts XVI 1. XIX 22. as Mark upon Paul and Barnabas Acts XIII 5. and Mark again whether the same or another upon S. Paul 2 Tim. IV. 11. And therefore I easily grant both Timothy and Titus to have been Euangelists though the Scripture says it but of one 2 Tim. IV. 5. because I see them both Companions of S. Paul that is his Scholars and Ministers And therefore find it very reasonable that he should imploy Titus into Dalmatia to Preach the Gospel in those parts where himself had left hoping to goe further and carry it beyond into Illyricum whereof Dalmatia was a part as you may see by comparing the Scriptures 2 Tim. IV. 10. Rom. XV. 19. 2 Cor. X 16. Tit. III. 12. For thus also of the seven Ministers to the Apostles at Jerusalem you see Steven and Philip imploied in Preaching the Gospel and this later called therefore expresly an Euangelist Acts VI. 9. VIII 5 12. XXI 8. And therefore it is not possible for any man out of the Scriptures to distinguish between the Office of Euangelists and those whom I shewed to have been Apostles of the Apostles And thereby the conclusion remains firm that all Ecclesiasticall Power at that time remained and for future times is to be derived from the Apostles when we see by the Scriptures that the Euangelists derived their Office and Authority from their appointment And indeed how can common sense indure to apprehend it otherwise especially admitting that which hath been discoursed of the Power of the Keys in admitting into the Church That being made Christians by the Apostles because by them convinced to beleeve that they were Gods Messengers whom they stood bound to obey should neverthelesse by being Christains obtain the Power of regulating and concluding the Apostles themselves in matters concerning the Community of the Church which what it meant or that such a Society should be they could not so much as imagine but by them is a thing no common sense can admit without prejudice Those that purchase dominion by lawfull Conquest in the world become thereby able to dispose of all their Subjects have because they give them their lives that is themselves The Church is a People subdued to Christ by the Apostles not by force but by the sword of the Spirit and though to freedome yet that freedome consists in the state of particular Christians towards God not in the publique Power of the Church otherwise then it is conveyed lawfully from them that had it before the Church Indeed visible Christianity is a condition requisite to make a man capable of Ecclesiasticall Power and the Church is then in best estate when that legall presumption of invisible Christianity is most reasonable But if Saints because Saints have Power and Right to govern the Church then follows the Position imposed on Wicleffe and Husse in the Councell of Constance and condemned by all Christians that Ecclesiasticall Power holds and fails with Grace which will not fail to draw after it the like consequence in Secular matters pernicious to all Civile Societies that the interesse of honest men is the interesse of Kingdomes and States contradicting the principle laid down at the beginning that Christianity calls no man to any advantage of this world but to the Crosse Therefore no Christian or Saint as Saint or Christian hath any Right or Power in the Church but that which can be lawfully derived from the Order of the Apostles Those of the Congregations use to allege S. Peters apology to the Jewish Christians for conversing with Cornelius and his Company Acts XI 9. as also that of S. Paul Col. IV. 17. speaking to the body of the Church at Colossae Say to Archippus look to the Ministery which thou hast received to fulfill it as if S. Peter or Archippus must be afraid of Excommunication if they render not a good account of their actions to the People By which it may appear how truly I have said that the Power they give the People is in check to that Power which was exercised by the Apostles But if we reason not amisse it would be a great prejudice to Christianity that S. Peter could not inform Christian People of the reason of his doings which they understood not but he must make them his Soveraign Or that S. Paul conveying his commands to Archippus by an Epistle directed to the whole Church should be thought to invest the People in that Power by which he commands Archippus They allege also the People of the Church of Jerusalem present at the Councell there and joyned in the letter by which the decree is signified and conveyed to the Churches of Syria and Cilicia Acts XV. 4 12 23. But of this I have spoken already and am very willing to leave all men to judge by the premises whether
it is probable that for resolution in a doubt which such persons as Paul and Barnabas could not determine as to the Body of the Church it can be thought that they resorted to Jerusalem as to the Brethren or as to the Apostles whether it can be imagined that the People of the Church at Jerusalem could prescribe in any way either of Power or of Authority or Illumination unto the Church of Antioch and the publique persons of it Lastly whether the arrow is not shot beyond the mark when it is argued that this Decree is the act of the People because it appears that they assent to it seeing we know by the premises that they were bound to consent to the Acts of the Apostles So in the Power of the Keys and Excommunication what can be so plain as that S. Paul gives sentence upon the incestuous person at Corinth and obliges the Church there to execute his Decree as he calls it in expresse terms 2 Cor. V. 3 4 I conceive I have read an answer to this in some of their writings that this Epistle is Scripture and therefore the matter of it commanded by God But let me instance in the result of the Councell at Jerusalem The Church of Jerusalem was tied by virtue of the Decree for to them there was no Epistle sent Therefore the Church of Antiochia and the rest of the Churches to whom that Epistle was sent which we have Acts XV 23. were tied by virtue of the Decree not by virtue of the Epistle by which they knew themselves tied And let me put the case here Had S. Paul been at Corinth and decreed that which he decreeth by this Epistle had not the Church been tied unlesse he had sent them an Epistle or otherwise made it appear to them that he had a Revelation from God on purpose having made appearance to them that he was the Apostle of Christ Beleeve himself in that case when he says he will doe as much absent as present 2 Cor. XI 11. And again When I come I shall bewail divers 2 Cor. XII 20 21. that is excommunicate them or put them to Penance as I have said Remember the miraculous effect of Excommunication in the Apostles time when by visible punishments inflicted on the excommunicate by evil Angels it appeared that they were cast out of the shadow of Gods Tabernacle and it will seem as probable that this is the Rod which S. Paul threatens the Corinthians with 1 Cor. IV. 21. 2 Cor. X. 2 8. as that many were sick there because they abused the Eucharist 1 Cor. XI 30. Therefore if this effect of the sentence came from the Apostles the sentence also came Here appears a necessary argument from the Legislative Power of the Apostles to the whole Church For as no Christian can deny that the Constitutions of the Apostles oblige the Church so it is manifest that they doe not oblige it because they are written in the Scripture for they were all in force in the Church before the Scriptures were written in which they are related neither doth it evidence that they were first delivered to the Church with assurance that they were by expresse Revelation commanded to be delivered to the Church or because they were passed by votes of the People But by virtue of the generall Commission of the Apostles being received in that quality by those that became Christians and so made a Church So in matter of Ordinations it is well known who they are that have made the People beleeve that Paul and Barnabas Ordained Presbyters in the Churches of their founding by voices of the People signified by the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Acts XIV 22. which being admitted it is but an easie consequence to inferre that all Congregations are absolute because making their Presbyters they must needs first make themselves Churches But he that reads the Text without prejudice easily sees that the Act of Ordaining is here attributed to the Apostles not to the People They the Apostles ordained them to wit the Church or People Presbyters Therefore this Scripture speaks not of Election by Holding up of the Peoples hands but of Ordination by laying on the Hands of the Apostles And therefore in the choice of the seven Deacons it is manifest that the Apostles though they gave way to the People to nominate yet reserved themselves the approving of the persons otherwise the People might have sinned and the Apostles born the blame for it For when S. Paul saith Lay Hands suddenly on no man nor participate of other mens sins 2 Tim. V. 22. it is manifest that he who Imposes Hands ought to have power not to Impose because he sins Imposing amisse Last of all let us consider how liberally the Church of Jerusalem parted with whole estates the Church of Corinth maintained their Feasts of Love wherof we reade 1 Cor. XI 17. the same Corinthians with other Churches offered to the support of the Churches in Judaea 2 Cor. VIII 1 the Philippians sent to supply S. Paul Phil. II 25. 30. IV. 20. And all the rest which we finde recorded in the New Testament of the Oblations of the Faithfull to the maintenance of Gods Service Whence it shall appear in due time that the Indowment of the Church is estated upon it And then let common sense judge whether this came from the understanding and motion and proper devotion of the People or from their Christianity obliging them to follow that Order which the authority and doctrine of the Apostles should shew them to be requisite for their Profession and the support of the Church at that time By all this as it will easily appear that the Chief Interesse and Right in disposing of Church matters could not belong to the People under the Apostles so is it not my purpose to say that at any time the People ought to have no manner of Right or Interesse in the same For if the practice under the Apostles be the best evidence that we can ground Law upon to the Church then it is requisite to the good estate of the Church and necessary for those that can dispose of the publique Order of it to procure that it be such as may give the People reasonable satisfaction in those things wherein they are concerned Which what it requires and how farre it extends I will say somewhat in generall when we come to give bounds to the severall Interests in the publique Power of the Church In the mean time as no water can ascend higher then it descended afore so can no People have any further Right and Power in Church matters then that which the People had under the Apostles because that is all the evidence upon which their Interesse can be grounded and acknowledged Lesse is not to be granted more they must not require CHAP. III. That the Chief power of every Church resteth in the Bishop and Presbyters attended by the Deacons That onely the power of the Keys is
me no great thanks for saying that it is not against Gods Law that those who are not in Holy Orders do Preach For that which I have alleged for this in the Apostolicall form of Divine Service p. 420. out of that notable Epistle in Eusebius Eccles Hist VI. 20. in behalf of Origen who before he was Presbyter was imploied in Preaching by the Bishop of Caesarea consists in divers instances of other persons of Origens rank which Preached indeed but all by Commission from their respective Bishops who were themselves by their Places the Doctors in Chief of their respective Churches And if this be against Divine Right as we agree it is for any under the rank of a Presbyter to celebrate the Eucharist how shall any Church allow men to Preach for triall of their abilities before they attain that rank in which they are ordinarily to doe it That which hath been said of Preaching is to be said much more in my opinion of Baptism If the charge of Baptizing given the Apostles had been meant of the Office of Ministring not of the power of granting it what reason could there be that S. Peter having converted Cornelius and his company should not baptize them in person but command them to be baptized Acts IX 48 And if the Apostles imploy their Deacon S. Philip to Preach and to Baptize is it not by consequence that the Governours of particular Churches imploy their Deacons about the same In the Synagogue it cannot be said that the office of Circumcising ever required any higher quality then that of a person circumcised And therefore in the Church if there can be any question whether a person is to be admitted to Baptism or not it is the Chief Power of the Church that must determine it Or if the occasion require Solemnity which may argue him that Officiates it to be Chief in the Church no Deacon nor Presbyter must presume to doe it before the Bishop But because Baptisme is the gate as well of the invisible Church as of the visible and because the occasions are many and divers which indanger the preventing of so necessary an Office by death in this regard the practice of the Primitive Church alleged by Tertullian de Bapt. cap. XVIII must not be condemned whereby Baptism given by him that is only baptized is not onely valid but well done Though my intent hereby is not to say that it may not be restrained to Presbyters and Deacons when the Church is so provided of them that there is no appearance that Baptisme can be prevented for want of one But though I doe for these causes refuse the reason that Presbyterians can give why onely Presbyters may celebrate the Eucharist I am not therefore much more in love with that which the School Doctors give when they conceive that the Apostles were made Priests by our Lord at his last Supper when he said Do this For we do not find this exposition of these words authorized by the first ages of the Church or any Writers of that time And where the School Doctors speak not out of the mouth of the Primitive Church I make no difficulty to take them for none of my Authors And truly in this case the Text of the Scripture seems to be plain enough for the Command of our Lord Doe this in remembrance of me must needs speak to the same persons as the rest that goes afore Take eate drink divide this among you which belonging to the whole Church it is manifest the Precept Do this belonging also to the whole Church cannot make any difference of qualities in it In this difficulty then it will be hard to find any anchor so sure as that of Tertullian De Cor. cap. III. where making a Catalogue of Orders and Rules observed in the Church which are not found delivered in terms of Precept in the Scriptures he prosecuteth it thus Eucharistiae Sacramentum in tempore victus omnibus à Domino mandatum etiam antelucanis coetibus nec nisi de manu Praesidentium sumimus The Sacrament of the Eucharist was commended to the Church at meat saith Tertullian Is not this the expresse word of our Lord for when he saith Doe this is it not manifest that he commandeth to celebrate the Eucharist at the end of Supper as himself presently had done Sure enough the Primitive Church understood it so for the Ministery of Tables in the Acts of the Apostles for which the Apostles provide themselves Deacons and the Feasts of Love which S. Paul regulates at Corinth are enough to shew us that the Eucharist came at the end of them And so Tertullian shews that it was in his time when he sayes that they received the Eucharist at their Assemblies before day also that is to say as well as at their Feasts of Love at which our Lord ordained it But though there be no Precept extant in the Scripture that the Eucharist be used at those Assemblies of the Church which are held meerly for the Service of God besides those Feasts of Love yet if my reasons propounded in the Apostolicall Form of Divine Service p. 291. have not failed which hitherto so far as I know are not contradicted it doth appear by the Scripture that it was so under the Apostles And therefore that onely Presbyters are to celebrate the Eucharist the Church will be confidently assured because it appears by these words of Tertullian that this was the Primitive practice of the Church Especially if by any circumstance of Scripture it may appear to have been derived from the Apostles Which perhaps comparing the premises with the nature of the Eucharist will not fail us To shew that those who did eat of the Sacrifices of the Gentiles were accessory to their Idolatries the Apostle 1 Cor. X. 16 instanceth in the Jews who by eating of their Sacrifices did communicate with the Altar that is with God to whom that which was consumed upon the Altar belonged And because Christianity supposeth that the Gentiles Sacrifices were offered to Devils therefore the Gentiles communicating with Devils by eating the remains of their Sacrifices as the Jews with God that it was not lawfull to eat of their Sacrifices for them that communicated with God in the Eucharist as the Jews did with the same true God and the Gentiles with the Devils by their Sacrifices Thus the Apostles argument supposeth that in the Eucharist Christians do participate of the Sacrifice of the Crosse as Jews and Gentiles do of their Sacrifices and so that the purpose thereof is that by it we may participate of the Sacrifice offered to God upon the Crosse Which being carried by our Lord within the Vail into the most Holy Place of the Heavens to be presented to God as it is declared at large Hebr. IX 11 is notwithstanding no lesse participated by Christians then the Jews do participate of their peace-Offerings Which the Apostle teaches again when he tels the Hebrews XIII 10. that
out of the Scriptures it will be easie to drive a worse Trade of Preaching then ever Priests did of private Masses The one tending only to feed themselves the other to turn the good order of the world which is the Harbour of the Church into publique confusion to feed themselves the profaning of Gods Ordinance being common to both And if the taking away of private Masses must be by turning the Eucharist out of doors saving twice or thrice a year for fashions sake it is but Lycurgus his Reformation to stock up the Vines for fear men be drunk with the wine The Church of England is clear in this businesse The Order whereof as it earnestly sighs and grones toward the restoring of publique Penance the onely mean established by the Apostles to maintain the Church in estate to communicate continually so it recommendeth the continuall celebration of the Eucharist at all the more solemne Assemblies of Lords days and Festivals As for the Sermon it is to be when it can be had and were it now abated when such Sermons cannot bee had as were fitting it is easie to undertake that there would be room enough left for the celebration of the Eucharist In the mean time the Reformers of this Age had they considered so well as it behoved them what they undertook should easily have found that the continuall celebration of the Eucharist at all the more solemne Assemblies of the Church and the Discipline of Penance to maintain the people in a disposition fit to communicate in it is such a point of Reformation in the Church that without restoring it all the rest is but meer noise and pretence if not mischief Now the reason why the celebration of the Eucharist is reserved to Presbyters alone in consequence to the premises is very reasonable and will be effectuall to shew that it is common to all Presbyters and therefore that there is no such thing as Lay Elders For seeing all agree that Presbyters have their share in the Power of the Keys though the Chief Interess in it be the Bishops according to the Doctrine of the Church and seeing the work of this Power is to admit to the Prayers of the Church as S. John sheweth when he describeth Excommunication by not praying for the sins of the excommunicate and seeing it appeareth by S. James that the Prayers of the Church for the sins of them whom the Church prayeth for are the Prayers of the Presbyters what can we conceive more reasonable and consequent to the premises then that the Power of the Keys is convertible with the Office of celebrating the Eucharist belonging to the Bishop and Presbyters by virtue of it For what can be more agreeable then that the Prayers of the Church which the Eucharist is celebrated with be offered by those that are to discern who is to be admitted who excluded from the same This is the meaning of Josephus the Jew in Epiphanius against the Ebionites where being baptized by the Bishop of Tiberias at his parting he gives him money saying Offer for me for it is written Whose sins ye remit they are remitted and whose sins ye retain they are retained Expressing thereby the sense of Primitive Christians who when they were admitted to the Prayers of the Church which the Eucharist is offered to God with made account thereby that the Power of the Keys was passed and continually did passe upon them to the remission of sins Whereupon we see that it is an ordinary censure of the ancient Canons that he which did so or so his oblations be not received that is that he be out of the number of those for whom the Prayers of the Church are made which the Eucharist is offered with Therefore Ignatius thus prosecuteth the words last quoted He that is without the Sanctuary saith he comes short of the Bread of God For if the Prayer of one or two be so forcible with God what shall we think of the Prayer of the Bishop and the whole Church For the efficacy of the Prayers of the Church dependeth upon the Unity of the Church And the Power of the Keys is that which containeth that Unity It is therefore agreeable that those Prayers which are of this efficacy be the Prayers of them whom this Unity and the Power which preserves it is trusted with And for this reason though all Christians be Priests as the Scripture says 1 Pet. II. 5. Apoc. I. 6. by a far better title then Moses promises the Israelites Ex. XIX 6. The Sacrifice of Prayer being the act of the whole Church Yet notwithstanding it is by good right that Bishops and Presbyters are called Sacerdotes or Sacrificers in regard of the same Sacrifice of Prayer and Thanksgiving for which all Christians are called Sacrificers That is to say by way of excellence because that which is the act of all is by ordinance of the Apostles passed upon the whole Church reserved to be executed and ministred by them whom that Power which preserveth that Unity which inforceth the Prayers of the Church is trusted with He that refuseth this reason as built upon consequences that convince not must by consequence acknowledge that the celebration of the Eucharist is peculiar to Presbyters meerly by universall and perpetuall practice of the Church derived from the Order setled by the Apostles Which whether those of the Presbyteries will admit I leave to themselves to advise For as for their pretense that the Ministery of both Sacraments is convertible with the Office of Preaching upon which they style their Pastors or Preaching Elders Ministers of the Word and Sacraments it appears to be as void of any ground from the Scriptures as it is wide from the originall and Universall practice of the Church The Ministery of the Word being the Office of Apostles and Evangelists according to the Scriptures The Ministery of Baptism and Preaching communicable to Deacons and possibly to Lay men onely the celebration of the Eucharist proper to the Power of the Keys in Bishops and Presbyters But putting all the reasons that here are advanced to compromise yet out of the premises we have two effectuall arguments to convince the nullity of Lay Elders The first from the manner of sitting in the Church In as much as it hath been shewed that the Order and custome of it is to be derived from the Apostles themselves as being in use in their time For if the manner of their sitting in the Church were so distinguished that all the Presbyters sate in one Rank in the uppermost Room with the Bishop in the midst that is in the Head of them his Seat advanced above theirs as S. Hierome witnesseth of the Bishops of Alexandria from S. Mark from which manner of sitting they are called by the Greek Fathers 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as in the Scriptures 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and in Tertullian praesidentes how can common sense desire better evidence that there are but two qualities
Preached during the Apostles times What reason then can any Reader have to presume that any of their dead witnesses make more for their purpose then I who am alive and stand to see my self alleged point blank against the position which I intended to prove because forsooth in their understanding the premises which I use stand not with the conclusion which I intended to prove But to speak plain English for the future if any man can shew by any writing of any Christian from the Apostles to this innovation any man indowed with the Power of the Keys that was not also qualified to Preach and to celebrate the Eucharist I am content to be of the Presbyteries the next morning though I am so well satisfied that it will never be shewed that I say confidently it will always be to morrow Now because the Power of the Keys that is the whole Power of the Church whereof that Power is the root and source is common to Bishop and Presbyters it is here demanded what Act we can shew peculiar to the Bishop by precept of Gods Word for which that Order may be said to be superiour to that of Presbyters A demand sutable to the definition of the Schoole wherein an Order is said to be a Power to doe some speciall Act But extremely wide of the Terms that have been held heretofore Have we been told all this while that the Presbyteries are the Throne and Scepter of Christ the force and Power of his Kingdome hath so much Christian blood been drawn for the Cause and now in stead of shewing that they are either commanded or consistent with the Word of God is it demanded that the Government in possession in the Church from the Apostles shew reason why it cannot be abolished though instituted by the Apostles Surely though this is possible to be shewed yet though it could not be shewed it might be beyond any Power on earth to abolish the Order of Bishops For my part I conceive I have shewed heretofore that the Power of every respective Church was deposited by the Apostles with the respective Bishop and Presbyters and that therefore in the ages next to the Apostles the advice and consent of the Presbyters did concurre with the Bishop in ordering of Ecclesiasticall matters whereas Congregations were not yet distinct but a Bishop and Presbyters over the common Body of each Church Over and above what hath been said the condemning of Marcion at Rome and of Noetus at Ephesus are expresly said by Epiphanius Haer. XLII num I II. Haer. LVII nu I. to have been done passed by the Act of the Presbyters of those Churches The difference between Alexander Bishop and Arius Presbyter of Alexandria is said to have risen at a meeting and debate of that Bishop and his Presbyters in the letter of Constantine to those two reported by Eusebius De Vitâ Constant II. cap. penult And Epiphanius Haer. LXIX num III. And which is of a later date the Excommunication of Andronicus in Synesius his fifty seventh Epistle I finde reported to have passed in the same sort And all this agreeable to the practice recorded in the Scriptures For when S. Paul instructeth Timothy saying 1 Tim. V. 19 20. Against a Presbyter receive not an accusation but under two or three witnesses Them that sin rebuke openly that the rest may fear Is it not easie to gather from hence that he commandeth such accusations to be brought and proved before Timothy with the rest of his Presbyters but the competent censure to be executed before the whole Congregation of the Church And is it not manifest that S. James first gives S. Paul audience in a Consistory of the Presbyters to advise what course to take before the Congregation be acquainted with the businesse Acts XXI 18 The same being the practice of S. Cyprians time when Cornelius of Rome writeth to him Epist XLVI placuit contrahi Presbyterium As also expressed in the Apostolicall Constitutions II. 47. by the name of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Consistories appointed there to be held every week for composing all differences against the Lords Day And therefore as for my part the learned Blondell might have spared all his exact diligence to shew that Presbyters did concurre with the Bishop in acts of this nature The cunning would be in proving the consequence that therefore Bishop and Presbyters are all one which all common sense disavows For be it granted which he insisteth upon so much that as the Commentary upon S. Pauls Epistles under S. Ambrose his Name relateth Eph. IV. 11. at the first the eldest of the Presbyters was wont to be taken into the place of the Bishop For it is probable that this course was kept in some places though his conjectures will not serve to prove that it was a generall Rule what will this inable him to inferre as for the power of the Bishop being once received into the first place who knows very well the gallant speech of Valentinian recorded by Ammianus lib. XXVI to the very Army that had chosen him Emperour and at the instant of his inauguration began to mutiny about retracting their choice that it was in their power to choose an Emperour before they had done it Intimating that being chosen it was not in their power to withdraw their obedience For by the same reason whatsover be the means that promoted the Bishop the measure of the power to which he was promoted must be taken from the Law given the Church by the Apostles expressed by the practice of it As there is no doubt but the Romane Emperors were advanced to an absolute Power though by the choice of their Souldiers It is not my purpose to say that the Power of the Bishop in the Church is such But it is my purpose to appeal to common sense and daily experience and to demand whether in those Societies or Bodies which consist of a standing Councell and a Head thereof indowed with the Privilege of a Negative the Power of the Head and of the severall members be one and the same If not then is there the same difference between the Bishop and the Presbyters by the Scriptures interpreted by the Originall practice of the Church The Instructions addressed to Timothy Titus I suppose obliged not them alone but all that were concerned to yeeld obedience to what thereby they are commanded to doe If any thing concerning the subject of those instructions could have passed without Timothy and Titus they were all a meer nullity For instance if by the Presbyters Votes Ordination might have been made without Timothy they might commit sin and the blame thereof lie on Timothies score to which S. Paul if he lay hands suddenly on any man makes him liable So the Angels of the seven Churches as they are commended for the good so are they charged with the sins of their Churches Which how can it be reasonable but for the eminent power in them without
which no publick thing could passe I do here willingly mention Ignatius because of the injustice of that exception that is made against him Surely had we none but the old Copy which for my part is freely confessed to be interpolated and mixed with passages of a later hand I would confidently appeal to the common sense of any man not fascinated with prejudice how that can be imagined to be always foisted in which is the perpetuall subject of all his Epistles Dwelling onely upon the avoiding of Heresy and Schism and the avoiding of Schism every where inculcated to consist in this that without the Bishop nothing be done and all with advice of the Presbyters But it seems to me a speciall act of Providence that the true Copy of these Epistles free from all such mixture is published during this dispute among us Which the L. Primate of Ireland having first smelt out by the Latine Translation which he published Isaak Vossius according as he presumed hath now found and published out of the Library at Florence farre enough from suspition of partiality in this cause Nor is the learned Blondell to be regarded presuming to stigmatize so clear a Record for forged It seemes that his Book was written before he saw this Copy and had he not condemned it in his Preface he must have suppressed and condemned his own work But when it appears that this Record is admitted as true and native of all that are able to judge of letters it must appear by consequence that he hath given sentence against his own Book In the mean time it is to be lamented that by the force of prejudice so learned a man had rather that the advantage of so many pregnant authorities of a companion of the Apostles against the Socinians should be lost to the Church then part with his own whether opinion or interesse condemned by the same evidence Certainly those weak exceptions from the style of Ignatius have more in them of will then of reason to all that have relished that simplicity of language which called by S. Paul 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is to be seen in the writings of Apostolicall persons Irenaeus Justine Clemens Romanus and after them Epiphanius and the Apostolicall Constitutions And he was very forward to finde exceptions that could imagine that Ignatius calleth the Order of Bishops 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 because he so qualifieth the Ordination of Damas Bishop of the Magnesians being a young man when he was ordained Bishop As for the mention of the Valentinians Heresie in them he hath been fully told again and again that the seeds of it are extant before Ignatius in the writings of the Apostles But as to my present purpose he that considers of what consequence the Unity of the Church is to the advancement of Christianity and of what consequence not only Ignatius but S. Cyprian S. Hierome and all men of judgement professe the Power of Bishops to be to the preservation of Unity in the Church will not begge the question with Blondell by condemning Ignatius his Epistles because the one half of the subject of them is this one Rule nothing to be done without the Bishop all things to be done by advice of the Presbyters That to the Philadelphians is remarkable above the rest where he affirmeth that having no intelligence from any man of the divisions that were among them the Holy Ghost revealing it to him said within him for the means of composing them Without the Bishop let nothing be done If it be said that this Rule is ineffectuall hindring rather then expediting the course of businesse The answer is that it is enough that thus much is determined by the Apostles the rest remaining to be further limited by humane right as the state of the Church shall require According to this Rule it is justly said that Baptism is not given but by a Bishop as it is given only by those whom the Order of any Church which was never put in force without the Bishop inableth to give it A thing manifestly seen by Confirmation What reason can we imagine that Philip the Deacon being inabled to doe miracles for the conversion of the Samaritanes was not inabled to give the Holy Ghost but the Apostles must come down to do it Was it not to shew that all graces of that kinde were subject to the graces of the Apostles in the Visible Church whereof they were then Chief Governours So that as then those that received the Holy Ghost were thereby demonstrated to be members of the Visible Church in which God evidenced his presence by that grace So was it always found requisite that Christians be acknowledged members of the Visible Church by the Prayers and Blessing of their Successors Which Order as it serves to demonstrate this Succession to all that are void of prejudice so had it been improved to this Apostolicall intent what time as all Christians began to be baptized in infancy renuing the contract of Christianity that is the promise of Baptism and the Chief Pastors acknowledgement of them for members of the Church upon that contract by blessing them with Imposition of Hands without doubt it had been and were the most effectuall mean to retain and retrive the ancient Discipline of Church When men might see themselves by their own solemne profession obliged to forfeit the communion of the Church by forfeiting the terms on which they were admitted to it If it can thus be said that Baptism is not given without the Bishop much more will the same be said of other acts of the Power of the Keys whereof that is the first Presbyters have an interesse in it limitable by Canonicall Right but as to the Visible Church that any man be excommunicate without a Bishop is against this Rule of the Apostles About Ordinations divers matters of fact are in vain alleged by Blondell and others from the ancient Records of the Church tending to degrade Bishops into the rank of Presbyters If the Gothes from the time of Valeriane to the Councell of Nice for some LXX years as he conjectureth out of Philostorgius II. 5. if the Scots before Palladius as Fordone III. 8. and John Maire II. 2. relate retained Christianity under Presbyters alone without Bishops they had not in that estate the power of governing their own Churches in themselves but depended on their neighbours that ordained them those Presbyters and the Government of the Church among them then must be as now among the Abassines where their one Bishop does nothing but Ordain them Presbyters as Godignus ubi supra relates And as the Catholick Christians of Antiochia lived for some XXXIV years after the banishment of Eustathius Theodoret Eccles Hist I. 21. But if the Gothes had Bishops before Vlfitas at the Councell of Nice as he shews out of the Ecclesiasticall Histories is any man so mad as to grant him who never endeavours to prove it that they were made by their own Presbyters
rather then by the neighbour Bishops of the Romane Empire from whence they received Christianity The Head of a Monastery in Aegypt being a Presbyter is said by Cassiane Collat. IV. 2. to have promoted a Monk whom he loved to the Priesthood Is not this done by recommending him to his Bishop for that purpose though he Ordained him not himself The Bishops of Durham and Lichfield are said by Bede Eccles Hist Angl. III. 3 5. to come from the Monastery of Hy governed by a Priest And it is true that the Monks of that Monastery having great reputation of holinesse swaied the Church there But withall Bede mentions expresly the Synod of the Province and therefore we need ask no further who Ordained them Bishops knowing that by the Primitive Rules of the Church it is the Act of a Synod Some seem to conceive this to be the meaning of the supposed S. Ambrose upon Eph. IV. 11. where he saith that at first the eldest of the Presbyters succeeded the Bishop but that afterwards the course was changed ut non Ordo sed meritum crearet Episcopum which they understand thus That his merit and not the Bench of Presbyters should make the Bishop thenceforth and therefore that formerly the Presbyters did it But this is nothing For it is plain that Ordo here signifies not the Bench of Presbyters but a mans Rank in it according to the time of his promotion to it These others of his slight Objections are easily wiped away But there are two which seem to most men to create some difficulty The one is the ninth Canon of the Councell of Ancyra which if the reading be true which he produces and Walo Messalinus presses intimates plain enough that City Presbyters might Ordain Presbyters at that time when it was made The other is the Antiquities of the Church of Alexandria published not long since out of Eutychius his History who was Patriarch there in his time and affirms that from S. Mark to Demetrius the Bishop there was not only chosen but Ordained by Imposition of the Hands of twelve Presbyters of that Church To the Canon of Ancyra I acknowledge that the reading which they follow is beside the Copies which they allege found in a very ancient written one of the Library at Oxford as well as in the old Latine Translation of Dionysius Exiguus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 That it be not lawfull for Country Bishops to Ordain Presbyters or Deacons Nor for the City Presbyters without leave granted from the Bishop by Letters in every Parish But I cannot grant this reading to be true which so many circumstances render questionable First in an Arabick Paraphrase now extant in the same Library there is nothing to be found of that clause 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Secondly Isidore Mercators Translation which seems to be that which was anciently received in the Spanish Churches before Dionysius Exiguus wherewith that Copy agreed which Hervetus translated as also Fulgentius his Breviate Can. XCII and the Copy of Dionysius Exiguus which Pope Adriane the I. followed hath onely this Vicariis Episcoporum quos Graeci Chorepiscopos vocant non licere Presbyteros vel Diaconas Ordinare Sed nec Presbyteris civitatis sine Episcopi praecepto amplius aliquid imperare vel sine authoritate literarum ejus in unaquaque Parochiâ aliquid agere Thirdly can the reading of the last words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 seem probable to reasonable persons what consequence of sense is there in saying unlesse license be granted by letters in every Parish Which is plain in this reading when it is said That the City Presbyters do nothing in the Parish that is in the Country or Diocese without authority by the Bishops letters Fourthly seeing this is that which is afterwards provided for by the Councel of Laodicea Ca. LVI in the same subject it seems very probable that this should be the provision which the Councell of Ancyra intended as all Ignatius his Epistles and other Canons Apost XL. Arelat XIX expresse it Though for my part I do not beleeve that we have the true reading of this Canon in any Copy that I have heard of or seen Because the Arabick Paraphrase aforesaid deduces the clause of the Country Bishops at large that it is not granted them Vt faciant Presbyteros neque Diaconos omnino neque in Villa neque in Vrbe absque mandato Episcopi Nisi rogatus fuerit Episcopus hac de re permiserit eis ut faciant eos necnon scripserit eis scriptum quod authoritatem dabit eis eadem de re Whereupon I do beleeve that the Canon is abridged and curtailed in all Copies and that the true intent of it consists in two clauses The first that Country Bishops Ordain neither Presbyters nor Deacons without leave under the Bishops hand The second that the City Presbyters do nothing in the Diocese without the like leave Though I undertake not to give you the words of mine own head As for Eutychius I cannot admit his relation to be Historicall truth having forfeited his credit in that part of it where he says that there were no Bishops in Aegypt beside him of Alexandria before Demetrius The contrary whereof appears by Eusebius Eccles Hist VI. 1. where he says of Aegypt 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 That then lately Demetrius after Julian had undertook the Bishoprick of the Dioceses there For where there were Dioceses there were Bishops And if Demetrius after Julian governed the Dioceses of Aegypt because Bishop of Alexandria then were there other Episcopall Churches in that Province besides Alexandria before Demetrius Indeed if there had been no Bishops under Alexandria it could not reasonably be avoided that the Bishop should be Ordained by the Presbyters Otherwise forein Bishops that should be called to Ordain them a Bishop must by so doing purchase a Power over that Church which never any can be said to have had over those Capitall Churches of Antiochia Rome Alexandria or Constantinople But supposing that there were Bishops under him of Alexandria it is a greater inconvenience to grant that their Chief should be made without their consent which Ordination implies by the often quoted rule of S. Paul 1 Tim. V. 22. by the Presbyters of Alexandria And therefore when S. Hierome says Epist LXXXV that Bishops were set over the Presbyters by custome of the Church to avoid Schism because that Alexandriae à Marco Evangelista usque ad Heraclam Dionysium Episcopos Presbyteri semper unum ex se electum in excelsiori gradu collocatum Episcopum nominabant At Alexandria from Mark the Evangelist till Heraclas and Dionysius were Bishops the Presbyters were wont to choose one of their number and placing him in a higher degree named him their Bishop I am not to grant that he intends by these words that he was Ordained also by the Presbyters For instance Eusebius Eccles Hist VI. 29. relating that at the Ordination of Fabianus
at Rome a Dove lighting upon his head the people crying out 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Tooke him presently and set him in the Bishops Throne And yet it cannot be said that therefore the people Ordained him Bishop So likewise the Presbyters of Alexandria seated one of their number in the Bishops Chair saith S. Hierome This installing must needs have the force of a nomination by the Presbyters and so sway and prejudice the consent of the Bishops assembled to the Ordination which regularly was to be done by a Synod of Bishops that their choice was never known to have been void before the time of Dionysius and Heraclas which was enough to ground S. Hierome an argument though ineffectuall But seeing Eusebius shews us that there were other Bishops in Aegypt seeing the life of S. Mark in Photius saith that he planted Churches in Pentapolis which seem to be those over which the authority of the Bishop of Alexandria is established by the Councell of Nice Can. IX I must not grant that they received their chief from the Presbyters of Alexandria without their own consent expressed by Imposition of Hands This is my opinion of the credit which we are to give to these two passages in point of Historicall truth But supposing not granting them both I cannot see what can be inferred from either of them prejudiciall to the Order of Bishops and the necessity thereof above Presbyters For seeing it is acknowledged that S. Mark Ordained a Bishop always to be Head of that Church and that by virtue of this Ordinance the Presbyters finde themselves obliged to proceed to create one which they did sooner at Alexandria then in other Churches after the vacancy saith Epiphanius Haer. LXIX 11. it is manifest that the authority of a Bishop is necessary to the validity of all Acts of the Church by S. Marks Ordinance when they acknowledge themselves necessitated to make one in the first place that the Acts thereof may be valid Again as to the Canon of Ancyra suppose Presbyters were Ordained by Presbyters upon Commission from the Bishop is this any prejudice to the Rule that nothing be done without the Bishop Or is it any advantage to them that would have no Bishops and so do all against the Bishop To my reason it seems necessary to distinguish between the solemnity which an Act is executed with and the Power and Authority by which it is done And that it cannot be prejudiciall to any Power to doe that by another which seemeth not fit to be immediately and personally executed by it The dependence of the Church being safe by the Commission acknowledged and the Unity of the Church by that dependence Some acts of the Primitive Church seem to require this distinction As the making of Presbyters by the Chorepiscopi or Country Bishops mentioned in the ancient Greek Canons Which by all likelihood were not properly Bishops because not Heads of a City Church which is the Apostolicall Rule for Episcopall Churches For the aforesaid Arabick Paraphrase of the Canon of Ancyra describes them thus Interpretatio ejus est Episcopi Villarum hoc est Vicarii Episcopi per Villas habitatas qua fuerint in universa operatione id est Diocesi The meaning of Country Bishops is that they are Bishops of Villages that is the Bishops Vicars in the best inhabited Villages of all the Diocese So it seems that they were set over the greater Villages or Bodies of Villages which in regard of some secular Right resort to some one Village lying within the Territory of some Episcopall City Therefore the Councell of Antiochia saith expresly Can. X. that they and the Countries which they govern are both subject to the Bishop of the City Whereupon it seems they were Ordained by that one Bishop and so not properly Bishops which are Ordained by a Synod or the Representatives of it and that this is the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which the Canon there mentions And this is the reason why they are called Vicarii Episcoporum Bishops Deputies in the ancient Translation of the Canons as you have seen So if the Canon of Ancyra enable them to Ordain Presbyters within their own precinct for that must be the meaning of it when it says 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifying part of the Territory of the City assigned to their peculiar care it seems to delegate this Power of the Bishop not to be exercised without Letters under his hand and seal as the Canon expresseth Again I suppose no man will deny that all Ordinations in Schism are meer nullities though made by persons rightly Ordained because against the Unity of the Church And yet we finde such Ordinations made valid by the meer Decree of the Church without Ordaining anew As the Meletians in Aegypt by the Councell of Nice in Epiphanius and the Ecclesiasticall Histories and as Pope Melchiades much commended for it by S. Augustine offered to receive all the Donatists in their own ranks besides divers others that might be produced Among which that expressed in the Canons Antioch XIII Apost XXXVI deserves to be remembred whereby Ordinations made in another Bishops Diocese are made void For the only reason why some things though they be ill done yet are to stand good is because the Power that doth them extendeth to them but is ill used So when the Power is usurped as in all Schism or when that is done which the Law makes void it can be to no effect Therefore when the act of Schism is made valid it is manifest that the Order of Bishop Presbyter is conferred in point of Right by the meer consent of the Church which by the precedent Ordination was conferred only in point of Fact being a meer nullity in point of Right Adde hereunto that of the Apostolicall Constitutions VIII 27. that a Bishop may be Ordained by one Bishop being inabled by an Order of the rest of the Province when they cannot assemble in case of persecution or the like For here the Power is derived from all though the solemnity be executed by one By the same reason it is that Confirmation in Aegypt was done by the Presbyters As the supposed S. Ambrose upon Eph. IV. agreeing with the Author of the Quaestions in Vet. Novum Testam Quaest CI. among S. Augustines Works witnesseth For that is it which the one of them means by consignant the other by consecrat because both limit their assertion that it was onely done in the absence of the Bishop Which cannot be supposed at Ordinations because they were regularly to be made at a Synod of Bishops For seeing it was done onely in the absence of the Bishop by consequence it was done by Order and Commission from the Bishop by which the custome was established And therefore cannot be prejudiciall to that Power by virtue whereof it was done as by authority derived from it And to my understanding this is the reason of that which we finde done Acts XIII 1 where
Paul and Barnabas being Ordained by the immediate act of the Holy Ghost to Preach to the Gentiles the solemnity thereof is performed by those in whom we cannot imagine the Power of sending them to rest In which opinion I am much confirmed by the practice of the Synagogue For though it is manifest that the custome of promoting Judges by Imposition of Hands came from the example of Moses and the Ordaining of the LXX Elders and Joshua yet we must beleeve their Records compiled by Maimoni â—â— de Synedrio cap. IV. when they tell us that in processe of time it was done without that solemnity by an Instrument or so and yet still called neverthelesse 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is Imposition of Hands And now let them that demand what is that speciall Act which Bishops are able to do and Presbyters not take their choice If they be content that the Bishops acting with this Interesse that without him nothing be done be counted a speciall Act they have the speciall Act which they demand in all things that are done in the Church If they be not though it is easie enough to dispute it everlastingly yet I will not contend with them about it seeing it is enough that nothing is done without him to make him a fair step above his Presbyters And yet I conceive there is an Act to be named peculiar to Bishops which is to sit in a Councell Which consisting of the representatives of all Churches and not capable of all Presbyters and the Bishops right being that without him nothing be done in his Church it follows that by the right by which he is a Bishop he is a member of his Synod which no Priest can be but by Privilege seeing the whole Order cannot And this according to the Scriptures For by the premises the Apostles had place in the Councell at Jerusalem as Ordinary Governours of the Churches concerned in it which Churches had there no other representatives but Paul and Barnabas as Heads of the Churches which they had founded so lately Acts XIII XIV as it appeares when by them the Decree is delivered to execution in the Churches Acts XVI 4. As for the Presbyters mentioned in it the same evidence which assures us that they were Presbyters assures us also that they were Presbyters of the Church at Jerusalem and none else This I conceive the fittest to be thought the speciall Act of a Bishop For the unity of the whole Church arises from the Power deposited in each Church By virtue whereof he that communicates with any one Church in any rank of it communicates with all Churches in the same Which was in the Primitive Church the effect of the literae formatae or letters of mark by which this Unity of the Ancient Church was maintained in as much as he that travelled with such a testimony of his rank in any one Church by virtue of the same was received in all Churches where he came And therefore Synesius in the sentence of excommunication against Andronicus which by his fifty seventh Epistle he publisheth to the Churches addeth that if any Church contemning the sentence of his Church as a small and a poor one should receive Andronieus to communion without satisfaction given to him and his Church thereby it shall become guilty of Schism This holds as such Acts are not questioned by any greater part of the Church as not concerning the State of other Churches Which if they be then as no Church can be concluded but by the Act to which themselves concur whereby all Excommunications Ordinations as wel as making of Canons are the subject of Synods so the chief Power must needs be most seen in that Act which concludes all Churches concerned which is the Act of a Synod As concerning the objection that there is no precept in the Scripture that Bishops govern all Churches and that many things Ordained by the Apostles are abolished in the Church It is a question whether it come from lesse skill or proceed to worse consequence For unlesse we will betray the advantages of the Church to very many and perhaps to all Heresies and Schisms that ever were we must confesse that as there are precepts in the Scripture that oblige not so there are many things not set down in the Scripture in the form of precepts that oblige What can be delivered in a more expresse form of precept then that of Saint Paul That women pray with their heads covered men with theirs uncovered and yet where is it in force The same is to be said of the Decree of Jerusalem against eating things strangled and blood On the other side we finde by the Scriptures that the Apostles kept the Lords Day but do not find there that they commanded it to be kept As for the fourth Commandement I suppose it is one thing to rest on the day that God ceased his work and another on the day that he began it And if there be precepts in the Scripture that now oblige not why may not Secinus dispute that the precept of Baptism was temporary for them that had been enemies to the Faith afore And though I say not that he shall have the better hand for the truth cannot be contrary to the truth yet it shall not be possible for every Christian to discern whether he hath it or no unlesse there be some more sensible ballast then nice consequences from the Text of the Scripture If it be thus of Baptism much more of the Eucharist which as you saw is not used any more in the Church as it was instituted As for the Power of the Keys it is absolutely by this answer betraied to the Socinians who would have it peculiar to the Apostles For it is no where delivered as a Precept but onely as a Privilege What means is there then to end everlasting difficulties Surely the same that there is to understand all positive Laws that ever were For if the ancient interruption of the practice of any Law secure the Church that it was not given to all times and places sure that which is not mentioned as a Precept and yet has been always in practice without interruption as it was in force afore it was mentioned so was intended to oblige not by the mention but by the act that first established it evidenced by practice Which if it be so then is there no Power on earth able to abolish the Order of Bishops having been in force in all Churches ever since the Apostles I must not passe this place of limiting all Interests without a word or two of the Office of Deacons in the Church In regard of two extreme opinions one of Geneva that makes them meer Lay men collectors of Alms by necessary consequence because under their Lay Elders the other of some that would have them understood to be Presbyters as oft as S. Paul mentions but two Orders of Bishops and Deacons Phil. I. 1. 1 Tim. II. 9. But as
the Apostles were at first their own Deacons before the Church allowed them some to wait on them and yet their whole function was then holy though some parts of it nearer to the end of the souls health So when Deacons were made reason inforces that they should attend on the meanest part of the Office of the Apostles but always on holy duties For the Tables which the Apostles saw first furnished themselves but were attended by the Deacons in doing it when they were made were the same which S. Paul speaks of 1 Cor. XI 20 which the Eucharist was celebrated at as the custome was daily to doe at Jerusalem Acts II. 42 46. and therefore their office by this was the same then as always it hath been since to wait upon the celebration of the Eucharist Secondly I have shewed afore that even the Apostles and their followers the Evangelists were also Deacons with as much difference as there is between the persons whom they served that is between our Lord and his Apostles on one side and the Bishop and Presbyters of a Church on the other Whereupon the Ministers of Bishops and Presbyters are called Deacons absolutely and the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 without any addition signifies to execute a Deacons Office 1 Tim. III 10. But the Apostles and Evangelists are called Deacons with additions signifying whose Ministers or to what speciall purpose as hath been said Thirdly when S. Paul says They that doe the office of a Deacon well purchase themselves a good step 1 Tim. II. 13. Clemens Alexandrinus and the practice of the Church interprets this step to be the rank of Presbyters Therefore they were in the next degree to it afore Fourthly it hath been shewed that they sate not but stood in the Church as attending the Bishop and Presbyters sitting and yet were imploied in the Offices of Preaching and Baptizing And accordingly in the Primitive Church a great part of the Service reading Lessons singing Psalms and some part of the Prayers were ministred by them as I have shewed in the Apostolicall form of Divine Service cap. X. Which held correspondently in the Synagogue For the Ministers and Apparitors of their Consistories were also their Deacons and ministred Divien Service in the Synagogue Whereby it appears to be the Ordinance of the Apostles that the younger sort of those that dedicated themselves to the service of the Church should be trained up in the service of the Bishop and Presbyters as well to the understanding of Christianity as to the right exercise of Ecclesiasticall Offices that in their time such as proved capable might come to govern in the Church themselves That which remains concerning the Interesse of the People in the Church will be easily discharged if we remember that it must be such as may not prejudice either the dependence of Churches or the Chief Power of the Bishop with the Presbyters in each particular Church The Law of the XII Tables Salus populi suprema lex esto though it were made for a popular State not for a Kingdome yet admits a difference between populus and plebs and requires the chief Rule to be the good both of Senate and Commons not of one part alone So likewise that which is said in the Scriptures to have been done by the Church must not therefore be imagined to be done by the People Because the Church consists of two parts called by Tertullian Oâ—do and Plebs in the terms of latter times the Clergy and People but preserving the respective Interests of Clergy and People In the choice of Matthias it is said They set two Acts I. 23. what they but the Church in which the People were then better Christians then to abridge the Apostles but proportionably they are always to respect the Bishop and Presbyters if they will obey the Apostles that command it 1 Thess V. 12 13. Heb. XIII 7 17. So when S. Paul says Doe not ye judge those that are within 1 Cor. V. 12. speaks he to the People or to the Church that is to the Bench of Presbyters and the People in their severall interests and that not without dependence upon the Apostles The words of our Lord Dic Ecclesiae Mat. XVIII 18. make much noise At the end of my Book of the Apostolicall form of Divine Service p. 428 you have a passage of S. Augustine Cont. Epist Parmen III. 2. that Excommunication is the sentence of the Church And yet I suppose no man hath the confidence to dispute that in S. Augustines time it was the sentence of the People So the Excommunication of Andronicus in Synesius his seven and fiftieth Epistle is intitled to the Church yet no man imagines that the People then did excommunicate Is not the case the same in the Synagogue Moses is commanded to speak to the Congregation of the children of Israel and he speaks to the Elders Exod. XII 2 25. does Moses disobey God in so doing or does he understand the command of God better then this opinion would have him in speaking to the Elders who he knew were to act on behalf of the People The Law commands the Congregation to offer for ignorance Lev. IV. 13 14. Num. XV. 22 24. how shall all the Congregation offer Maimoni answers in the Title of Errors cap. XII XIII that the great Consistory offers as often as they occasion the breach of the Law by Teaching that is interpreting it erroneously In the Law of the Cities of Refuge it is said The Congregation shall judge and the Congregation shall deliver the manslayer Num. XXXV 35 36. The Elders of the City of Refuge were to judge in presence and in behalf of the People whether the manslayer was capable of the privilege of the City of Refuge or not as you reade Joshua XX. 4 6. seeing then that these things being done by the Elders are said to be done by the Synagogue or Assembly of the People in behalf of whom they are done is it a wrong to the Scriptures when we say that which they report to be done by the Church was acted by the chief power of the Apostles and Presbyters with consent of the People For it is manifest in the Scriptures that in the Apostles times all publique Acts of the Church were passed at the publique Assemblies of the same as Ordinations Acts I. 23. VI. 3 6. Excommunications Mat. XVIII 18 19 20. 1 Cor. V. 4. 2 Cor. II. 10. Councels Acts XV. 4 27. Other Acts 2 Cor. VIII 19. And herewith agrees the Primitive custome of the Church for divers ages to be seen in a little Discourse of the Learned Blondell Of the Right of the People in the Church published of late And can this be thought to no purpose unlesse it dissolve the Unity of the Church or that obedience to the Clergy which God commandeth Is it nothing to give satisfaction to the People of the integrity of the proceedings of the Church and by the same mean
to oblige superiours to that integrity by making the proceedings manifest and so to preserve the Unity of the Church I say not that these times are capable of such satisfaction upon the like terms as them But from this practice under the Apostles I shall easily grant the people an Interesse in such things as may concern their particular Congregations of excepting against such proceedings as can appear to them to be against any Rule of the Scripture or of the whole Church For this Interesse it is upon which the people is demanded in the Church of England what they have to say against Ordinations and Mariages to be made And if their satisfaction in matter of Penance were to be returned it would be no more then the same reason inferres Especially because it hath been shewed that the prayers of the People or of the Church is one part of the means to take away sinne by the Keys of the Church the other being the Humiliation of the Penitent according to that Order and measure which the Bishop and Presbyters shall prescribe James V. 14 15. 2 Cor. XII 20 21. Mat. XVIII 21. 1 John V. 16. And if this Interesse were made effectuall by the Laws of Christian States and Kingdomes to the hindrance of such proceedings wherein the Power of the Church may be abused the Church shall have no cause to complain But that the Power should be taken from the Church because the Laws of the State are not so good as they might be is as unjust and pernicious a medicine as to put the Chief Power in the hands of the People For seeing it hath been demonstrated that as it was the custome to passe such Acts at the Assemblies of the whole Church so was it also to advise and resolve upon them at the Consistories of the Clergy it is manifest that the suffrage of the People often mentioned in Church Writers was not to resolve but to passe what was resolved afore because nothing appeared in barre to it For the Interesse of the People extending no further then their own Church and it being impossible that all the Christians within the Territories of Cities belonging to the respective Churches should all assemble at once it is manifest none of these matters could be resolved by number of Votes and therefore that the Power was not in the People but a Right to be satisfied of the right use of the Power by those that had it Which how it may be made effectuall to the benefit of the People in a Christian Church and State is not for me to determine But by virtue of this Right it is that as Justellus in his Notes upon the Greek and Africane Canons hath observed to us especially out of the Records of the Churches of Africk and of the West for divers Ages the Best of the People who as he shews were called Seniores Presbyteri Ecclesiarum were admitted to assist at the passing of the publique Acts of those Churches In all which as there is nothing to be found like the Power of the Keys which Lay Elders are created to manage So he that will consider the interesse in which it appears they did intervene comparing it with the intolerable trouble which the concurrence of the People was found to breed when the number of Christians was increased by the Emperours professing Christianity will easily judge that it was nothing else but the Interesse of the People which in succeeding ages was referred to some persons chosen out of them to manage in the publique Acts of the Church And this custome is sutable enough with the Office of Church-wardens in the Church of England if it had been established as well in the Mother and Cathedrall as in the Parish Churches CHAP. IV. Secular Persons as such have no Ecclesiasticall Power but may have Soveraign Power in Ecclesiasticall matters The Right of giving Laws to the Church and the Right of Tithes Oblations and all Consecrations how Originall how Accessory to the Church The Interesse of Secular Powers in all parts of the Power of the Church THese things thus determined and the whole Power of the Church thus limited in Bishops and Presbyters with reservation of the Interesse of the People specified it follows necessarily that no Secular person whatsoever endowed with Soveraign or subordinate Power in any State is thereby endowed with any part of this Ecclesiasticall Power hitherto described Because it hath been premised for a Principle here to be reassumed that no State by professing Christianity and the protection thereof can purchase to it self or defeat the Church of any part of the Right whereof it stands possessed by the Originall institution of our Lord and his Apostles and therefore no person indowed with any quality subsisting by the Constitution of any State can challenge any Right that subsisteth by the Constitution of the Church and therefore belongeth to some person qualified by the same For Ecclesiasticall Power I understand here to be onely that which subsisteth by the Constitution of the Church And therefore all by Divine Right to all that acknowledge no humane authority capable of founding the Church And therefore by Divine Right invested in the Persons of them that have received it mediately or immediately from the Apostles seeing it is no ways imaginable how any man can stand lawfully possessed of that Power which is effectually in some body else from whom he claimeth not And therefore not to be propagated but by the free act of them that so have it But I intend not hereby to exclude Secular Powers from their Right in Church matters But intend to distinguish between Ecclesiasticall Power and Power in Ecclesiasticall matters and these to distinguish by the originall from whence they both proceed because so we shall be best able to make an estimate of the effect which both of them are able to produce according to the saying observed afore that the water rises no higher then it descended afore For if by Ecclesiasticall Power we mean that which arises from the Constitution of the Church it is not possible that by any quality not depending on the same any man should be inabled to any act that doth But if Power in matters of Religion be a Power necessary to the subsistence of all States then have Christian States that Power in the disposing of Christianity which all States in generall have in the disposing of those things which concern that Religion which they suppose and professe And this to prove I will not be much beholding to the Records of Histories or to the opinions and reasons of Philosophers Seeing common sense alone is able to shew us that there is not any State professing any Religion that does not exercise an interesse in disposing of matters of Religion as they have relation to the publique peace tranquillity and happinesse of that people The Power of disposing in matters of Religion is one part and that a very considerable one of that publique
Power wherein Soveraignty consists which subordinate Powers enjoy not by any title but as derived from the Soveraign Wherefore having premised for a principle in the beginning that Christianity makes no alteration in the state of civile Societies but establishes all in the same Right whereof they stand possest when they come to imbrace Christianity I must inferre that the publique Powers of Christian States have as good Right to the disposing of matters of Christianity so that according to the institution of Christ nothing done by the Church may prove prejudiciall to the State as any Soveraign Power that is not Christian hath in the disposing of matters of that Religion which they professe For seeing it is part of the profession of Christianity to confirm and establish not to question or unsettle any thing which is done by civile Justice in any State whatsoever secular Powers shall doe towards maintaining the State of this world in tranquillity cannot be prejudiciall to Christianity rightly understood Neither can it be true Christianity which cannot stand with the course of true civile Justice It hath been effectually proved by Church Writers against the Gentiles that supposing them not to beleeve the Christian Faith notwithstanding they cannot with civile Justice persecute the Christians And all upon this score that Christianity containeth nothing prejudiciall to civile Society but all advantageous But though the Christian Religion be grounded upon truth indeed revealed from God yet Religion in generall is a morall virtue and part of the profession of all civile Nations In so much as that people which should professe to fear no God would thereby put themselves out of the protection of the Law of Nations and give all civile people a Right and Title to seek to subdue them for their good and to constrain them to that which the light of nature is able to demonstrate to be both true and due For how can any of them expect Faith and Troth in civile commerce from them that acknowledge no reason for it Or how can they be thought to acknowledge any reason for it that acknowledge no God to punish the contrary Or how can they be but enemies of mankinde from whom that cannot be expected But in Christianity there is that particularity which I declared afore that God hath declared his will and pleasure to be that it be received into the protection of all Kingdomes and Commonwealths Wherefore it is further the will of God that secular Powers that are Christian act in the protection of Christianity not onely as secular Powers but as Christians And by consequence that they hold themselves obliged to the maintenance of all parts of Christianity That is whatsoever is of Divine Right in the Profession and Exercise of it But it is very well said otherwise that this whole Right of secular Powers in Ecclesiasticall matters is not destructive but cumulative That is that it is not able to defeat or abolish any part of that Power which by the Constitution of the Church is setled upon Ecclesiastical persons but stands obliged to the maintenance and protection of it For seeing this Power in the persons endowed with it by the Constitution of the Church is a very considerable part of that Right which God hath established in his Church it follows necessarily that no Power ordained to the maintenance of all parts thereof can extinguish this And truly he that advises but with his own common sense shall easily perceive that Ecclesiasticall Power may be able to preserve Order and Discipline in the Church by it self so long as the World that is the State professes not Christianity as we see it was before the Romane Empire was Christian But when the State professes Christianity it cannot be imagined that persons qualified by the State will ever willingly submit to acknowledge and ratifie the Power of the Church in all the acts and proceedings thereof unlesse the coactive Power of the Soveraign inforce it All States therefore have Soveraign Power as well in matters of Christian Religion as in other points of Soveraignty That is they are able to do all acts of Soveraign Power in Church matters To give Laws as well concerning matters of Religion as civile affairs To exercise Jurisdiction about Ecclesiasticall causes To Command in the same which seems to be the most eminent act of Soveraignty seeing that giving of Laws and Jurisdiction are but particulars of that generall the one that is giving Laws in Generals the other that is Jurisdiction in particular causes And both of them tending to limit that Power of Command or Empire which otherwise is absolute in the disposition and will of the Soveraign And therefore the most civile people that ever was the Romanes have denominated Soveraignty by this act of Command Imperium or Empire But all these acts of Soveraign Power in Church matters being distinguished from the like acts of Ecclesiasticall Power not by their materiall but formall objects that is not by the Things Persons or Causes in which but by the reasons upon which and the intents to which they are exercised must needs leave the Powers of the Church intire to all purposes as it finds the same in those that have it by the constitutions of the Church Here are two Points of the Power of the Church to be setled before we go any further Not because of any affinity or dependence between them but because the reason is the same which causes the difficulty in both Whether there be an Originall Power in the Church to give Laws as to the Society of the Church Whether there be an Originall Right in the Church to Tithes Oblations First-fruits and generally to all consecrate things seems to most men more then disputable because the accessory acts of secular Powers which in all Christian States have made the Laws by which Christianity is exercised the Laws of those severall States have established the endowment of the Church upon it by that coactive Power which they onely in Chief are endowed with being most visible to common sense seem to have obscured the Originall Right of the Church in both particulars Over and besides all this those of the Congregations deny the Church all Power of giving Laws Rules Canons or however you please to call them to the Church For to this purpose they make all Congregations absolute and Soveraign that nothing be done in the Church without the consent of every member of it Not acknowledging so much as that Rule which all humane Society besides acknowledges the whole to be bound by the act of the greater part But requiring that every mans conscience be satisfied in every thing that the Church does unlesse some happily appear wilfull whom by way of penalty they neglect for that time As for those of the Presbyteries I cannot deny that they grant the Church this Power But it seems upon condition that it may rest in themselves For to the Laws of this Church in which they received
between the Law and the Gospel For under the Law this power took place in the practice of all Ceremoniall and Judiciall Laws proper to the Synagogue As well as in determining the circumstances and ceremonies of the worship of God which still remains under the Gospel saving the difference thereof from the Law For under the Gospel there belong to Christianity two sorts of things The first whereof are of the substance of Christianity as concerning immediately the salvation of particular Christians And this kinde is further to be distinguished into matter of Faith and matter of life or manners The second concerns indeed the salvation of particular Christians as containing the Unity of the Church and the due exercise of all those Ordinances which God will be served with in the Unity of the Church but mediately as they are means to beget and preserve in all Christians those things of the former sort that concern Faith or good maners For if it were morally possible to imagine that a man blamelesly deprived of all means of Communion with the Church could be neverthelesse endowed with all parts of a Christian in Faith and good manners I doe not see how any discreet Christian could deny such a one the end of Christianity which is life everlasting All things therefore concerning Faith and good Works necessary to the salvation of particular Christians are so revealed or rather so commanded by our Lord and his Apostles that it is not possible for all the Church that succeeds to declare any thing to be such that is not expresly or by consequence contained in their writings For how shall all the Church be able to adde any thing to this number but by shewing the same motives which our Lord and his Apostles advanced to the World to perswade them not onely that what they spoke was revealed by God but also that they were sent to require the World to beleeve and obey them But as to that which concerns the Society of the Church and the publick service of God in the Unity of the same what can we say our Lord in Person commanded but the Power of the Keys upon which it is founded and the Sacraments of Baptism and the Eucharist in the Communion whereof the Unity of the Church consisteth And his Apostles how did they proceed in determining the rest Surely he that will say that they never enacted any thing till a revelation came on purpose from God will fall under the same inconveniencies which render the infallibility of the Pope or the Church ridiculous to common sense Which if they beleeved themselves sure they would never call Councels advise with Doctors debate with one another to finde what may truly be said or usefully determined in matters of difference In like manner when the Apostles assemble themselves at Jerusalem Acts XV. 1 to debate in a full meeting with Saul and Barnabas the Presbyters of Jerusalem and the rest what to resolve in the matter there questioned I say not they were no Prophets or had no revelations from God when he pleased But I say it is manifest that they proceeded not upon confidence of any revelation promised them at this time and in this place but upon the habituall understanding which as well by particular revelation from God as by the Doctrine of our Lord they had proportionable to the Chief Power over the whole Church which they were trusted with To speak ingenuously mine own opinion which I seek not to impose upon any mans Faith I do beleeve that some person of those that were then assembled in Councell had a present inspiration revealing that Gods will was that the Decree there enacted should be made My reason is because I observe by divers passages of the Old and New Testaments that God was wont to send revelations to his Prophets at the publick Assemblies of the Church of Synagogue As at the sending of Saul and Barnabas Acts XIII 2. At the Ordination of Timothy 1 Tim. IV. 14. At the Assemblies of the Corinthians 1 Cor. XIV 24 25 30. At Josaphats Fast 2 Chron. XVIII 14. At Saint Johns Ordinations whereof Clemens in the place afore alleged out of Eusebius his Ecclesiasticall Histories saith that the Apostle was wont to goe abroad to Ordain such as were signified by the Holy Ghost Whereupon S. Paul saith of the Presbyters of Ephesus That the Holy Ghost had set them over the flock Acts XX. 28. and therefore when it is said Acts XV. 28. It seemed good to the Holy Ghost and to us I take it that some such revelation is intimated But this notwithstanding when we see the message sent the Church assembled the cause debated without assurance of any such revelation to be made whereof no Prophet had assurance till it came we see they proceeded not upon presumption of it but upon the conscience of their ordinary power and the habituall abilities given them to discharge it So that from the premises we have two reasons serving to vindicate the same Power to the Church The first because the Constitutions in force under the Apostles cannot be said to come from particular extraordinary inspiration of the Holy Ghost but from the ordinary power of governing the Church which was to continue The second because by the proceedings of the Councell of Jerusalem it appears that no revelation was a ground or requisite to the determining of the matter there in difference To which I adde a third from S. Pauls words 1 Cor. XI 16. If any man be contentious we have no such custome neither the Churches of God Where having disputed by many reasons that women were to vail their faces at the Service of God in the Church he sets up his rest upon laudable custome of the Church Now if custome be available to create Right in the Church as in civile Societies then authority much more without which either prescribing or allowing neither that custome which the Apostle specifies nor any other could take place And a fourth from that observation so advanced and improved that no man can deny it but he that will make himself ridiculous to all men of learning besides the instances thereof in the premises which is this That the Orders which the Apostles setled in the Church saving the difference between the Law and the Gospel are always or at least most an end drawn from the pattern of the Synagogue Whereby it appeareth that the convenience of them was evident not by revelation but by humane discourse but the force of them comes from the authority of the Apostles prescribing or allowing them in the Church Both which are always in the Church though in lesse measure Fifthly this is proved by the premises Wherein I conceive it is proved that the Clergy in the Church succeeds into the Authority of the Jews Consistories in the Synagogue Wherefore having shewed that those Consistories did give Law to the Synagogue in all matters of Religion not determined by God it follows
that the same may be done in the Church Sixthly the same followeth from the dependence of Churches For if Congregations be made independent that no Christian may receive Law from man wherein he is not satisfied of the will of God then having proved that Congregations are not independent it follows that they are to receive Law in all things not contrary to the will of God Seventhly the exercise of this Power in all ages of the Church and the effects of it in great volumes of lawfull Canonicall decrees though it be a mark of contradiction to them that are resolved to hate that which hath been because it hath been yet to all whose senses are not maleficiated with prejudice it is the same evidence of this Power though not always of the right use of it by which Christianity it self stands recommended to us Lastly can those of the Congregations say that no publick act is done among them without the free and willing consent of all as satisfied in conscience that it is the will of God which is decreed Then are they not men For among all men there is difference of judgement If notwithstanding they are inforced to proceed why depart they from the Church For if those that place the Chiefe Power in Congregations cannot avoid to be tied by other mens acts why refuse they to be tied once for all by such generall acts as Laws are Which as they must needs be done by persons capable to judge what the common good of the Church requires which it is madnesse to imagine that members of Congregations can be so they have the force when they are once admitted to contain the whole body of the Church agreeing to them in Unity Whereas to acknowledge no such tends to create as many Religions as persons And now to the objection of wil-worship in the observation of humane constitutions the answer will not be difficult That sinne I doe truly beleeve to be of a very large extent as one of the extremes opposite to the Virtue of Religion understanding Religion to be all service of God with a good conscience Thus all the Idolatries of the Gentile all the superstitions of Judaism and Mahumetism are will-worships For man being convinced of his duty to serve God and neither knowing how to perform nor willing to render that service which he requires because inconsistent with his own inclinations it follows that by a voluntary commutation he tender God something which he is willing to part with in stead of his concupiscences Having condemnation both for neglecting to tender that which is due and for dishonouring God by thinking him to be bribed by his inventions to wink at his sins And therefore I do grant that the Constitutions which the Synagogue was by Gods Law enabled to make were capable to be made the matter of Superstition and will-worship as indeed in our Lords time they were made The reason because presuming to be justified by the works of the Law and the Law among them being not onely the written but that which was taught by word of mouth the righteousnesse of the Scribes and Pharisees which the Disciples of Christ shall never enter into the Kingdome of heaven unlesse they exceed consisted not only in the letter of the Ceremoniall and Judiciall precepts but in observing the determinations of their Consistories And accordingly I doe grant that the Rules Decrees and Constitutions of the Church are capable to be made the matter of the same sin and that they are made so visibly in divers customs and practises of the Church of Rome But is it a good reason to say that because humane Constitutions may be made the subject of superstition and will-worship therefore the Church hath no Power to make any therefore the members of the Church are not tied to obey any Or may there not be superstition and will-worship in abhorring as well as in observing humane Constitutions If S. Paul be in the right there may For if the Kingdome of God consist in righteousnesse and peace and joy in the Holy Ghost not in eating or not eating in observing or not observing days by the same reason it consists no more in not doing then in doing that which the Law of God determineth not Wherefore if any man imagine that he shall please God in not observing in refusing in opposing in destroying humane Constitutions regulating the publick order of the Church it is manifest that this is because he thinks he shall be the better Christian by forbearing that which God commands him not to forbear seeing he can finde in his heart to violate Unity and Charity that he may forbear it Here it may be demanded of me why I expresse no other ground of this Power in the Church then the indetermination of those things which Order and Unity requires to be determined in the Church For seeing matters of Faith are determined by Gods Word it seems to follow that the Church hath nothing to do to determine of matters of Doctrine in difference And seeing the Ceremonies of Divine Service besides the determining of that which the Scripture determineth not pretend further to advance and improve devotion in the publick Worship of God as I have discoursed more at large in the Apostolicall form of Divine Service ca. IX It seems if there be no other ground for the Legislative Power of the Church that the Church hath nothing to do to institute such Ceremonies To which I answer that it is one thing to make that matter of Faith which was not another to determine matter of Faith that is to determine what members of the Church shall do in acknowledging or not acknowledging that which is in question to be or not to be matter of Faith For if there be a Society of the Church then must there be in the Church a Power to determine what the members thereof shall acknowledge and professe when it comes in difference Which is not to qualifie the subject that is to make any thing matter of Faith or not but to determine that those which will not stand to the Act of the Whole that is of those persons that have right to conclude the Whole shall not be of it So the obligation that such Acts produce as it comes from the Word of God which the Church acknowledges is a duty of Faith but as it relates to the determination of the Church as a duty of charity obliging to concurre with the Church where it determineth not the contrary of that which the Word of God determineth Again when I say the Church hath Power to determine that which Gods Law determines not I must needs be understood to mean that which shall seem to make most for the advancement of godlinesse Now the Scripture shews by store of examples of Ceremonies in the Publick Service of God under the Church as well as under the Synagogue that the institution of significative Ceremonies in the Publick worship of God doth make for
the advancement of godlinesse otherwise such had not been Ordained by the Apostles and Governors of Gods ancient People For of this nature is the vailing of women at Divine Service of which S. Paul writes to the Corinthians the Kisse of Charity so often mentioned in the writings of the Apostles which the Constitutions of the Apostles II. 57. and Origen upon the last to the Romanes shew to have been practised before the Consecration and the receiving of the Eucharist to signifie the Charity in which they came to communicate the many Ceremonies of Baptism to which S. Paul alludes in divers places Col. II. 11 12. III. 9 10. Rom. VI. 4 5. to wit putting off old clothes drenching in water so as to seem to be buried in it putting on new clothes at their comming out Which being used in the Primitive Church by these passages of S. Paul we are sure were Instituted by the Apostles Of this nature are the gestures of Prayer which we reade in the Scripture that it was always the custome of Gods people to make sitting kneeling or groveling as the inward dejection of the minde required a greater or lesse degree of outward humiliation of the body to produce and maintain as well as to signifie it Thus our Lord stands up to reade the Law but sits down to Preach Luc. IV. 16 20. the one to shew reverence to the Giver of the Law the other authority over the Congregation which he taught as a Prophet And therefore I make no doubt but that in receiving the Book of the Law he used that reverence which was and is used in the Synagogue the like whereof by the Acts of the Primitive Martyrs we understand to have been used to the Book of the Gospels for in the examination of one of them you have Qui sunt libri quos adoratis legentes as we now stand up at the reading of the Gospel Of this nature are the ceremonies of the Jews publick Fasts quoted afore out of the Prophet Joel which it seems the Prophet Jonas taught the Ninevites at their Fast Jon. III. 5 6. which sure have no force to move God to compassion but as they move men to that humiliation which procures it of this nature is Imposition of hands used in the Scripture in Blessing that is in solemne Prayers for other Persons as in the Gospel over children and sick persons as in the Law Jacob lays hands on Josephs children Moses on Joshua and the LXX Presbyters the Prophets on such as they cured 2 Kings VI. 11. whereupon it was received by the Ordinance of the Apostles in Confirmation Penance and Ordinations as also it is said to be still used in some Eastern Churches at the Blessing of Mariages In fine the Frontlets and the Scrols which God appoints the Jews to set upon their Fore-heads and the Posts of their doores Exod. XIII 9. Deut. VI. 8. XI 17. for my part I make a great question whether he obligeth them thereby to use according to the letter as they do But that commanding the effect the remembrance of the Law he should be thought to forbid the means that is the sensible wearing of such marks that I count utterly incredible Seeing it was easie for them to use such marks and yet to think themselves never a whit the holier for them without the thing signified though in our Lords time they did so as we see by his reproofs in the Gospel and though by their writings Maimoni by name in the Title of Finages cap. III. and in the Title of Phylacteries ca. XI XII we see that still they do And thus upon the reasons advanced that is of determining that which the Law of God determines not follows the whole Power of the Church in deciding matters of Doctrine in determining the circumstances and ceremonies of Gods publick worship and of all the Ordinances of God for the maintenance and exercise of the same For in instituting Ceremonies significative not of Christ to come that indeed and that onely is Judaism but of the Faith and devotion which we desire to serve God with it is enough that this power may be exercised to the advancement of godlinesse if it be exercised otherwise then it ought it is still to be obeyed because the Unity of the Church is of great consequence to maintain though we attain not that advancement of godlinesse which the use of this Power ought to procure but does not And if any Power should be void because it is not used for the best or absolutely not well used then could no humane society subsist either Sacred or Civile Which must subsist in all things wherein it commands not the contrary of a more ancient Law which is Gods Law in our case From the premises it will not be difficult to resolve whether Councels be of Divine Right or not distinguishing between substance and circumstance between the purpose and effect of them and the manner of procuring it For if we speak of giving Law to the Society of the Church it is proved that whether you take it for a Power or a Duty a Right or a Charge or rather both seeing the one cannot be parted from the other the Church may and ought to proceed to determine what is not determined but determinable by consent of particular Churches that is by the consent of such persons which have Power to conclude the consent of their respective Churches Whereof we have shewed that none can ever be concluded without the consent of their respective Bishops But if we speak of the circumstance and manner of assembling in one place certain persons in behalf of their severall Churches with authority to prejudice and foresway and preingage the consent of the same We have a precedent or rather precedents without a precept in the Acts of the Apostles where the Apostles are assembled to Ordain a twelfth Apostle Acts I. 13. where they are assembled to institute the Order of Deacons Acts VI. 2 where Paul and Barnabas come from Antiochia and the Churches depending thereupon to the Apostles and Church of Jerusalem to take resolution in their differences Acts XV. 1 where Paul goes in to James to advise how to behave himself without offence to the Christian Jews at Jerusalem Acts XXI 18 for the premises being admitted all these meetings are justly and necessarily counted Synods or Councels both in regard of the Persons whereof they consisted the consent of divers Apostles being of as much authority to the Church as the resolution of a Synod and in regard of the matter determined at them concerning the whole Church in a high degree especially at that time And we have a Canon among those of the Apostles which appears very ancient by the Canons of Nice containing the same and turning Custome into Statute Law commanding that Synods be held in every Province twice a year But when Tertullian tels us that in the parts of Greece they held Councels ordinarily he constrains us
to beleeve that in other parts of the Church they did not and when we reade of persecutions against the ordinary assemblies of the Church we must presume that as the persecution of Councells would have made greater desolation in the Church so must they needs be more subject to be persecuted And by Eusebius and the rest of the Ecclesiasticall Histories and by the communication of the Primitive Bishops Clemens Ignatius Polycarpus S. Cyprian and the rest as they follow still extant in their Epistles we understand that their personall Assemblies were supplied by their Formatae or letters of mark whereby the acts of some Churches the most eminent being approved by the rest after they were sent to them purchased the same force with the Acts of Councels Wherefore the holding of Councels is of Divine right so farre as it is manifest to common sense that it is a readier way to dispatch matters determinable though when it cannot be had not absolutely necessary But it is always necessary that seeing no Church can be concluded without the Bishop thereof the Bishops of all Churches concurre to the Acts that must oblige their Churches Not so their Presbyters because it is manifest that all Presbyters cannot concurre though upon particular occasion some may as the Presbyters of the Church where a Councell is held as at Jerusalem Acts XV. 6. which we finde therefore practised in divers Councels of the Church As to supply the place of their Bishops by deputation in their absence or perhaps as to propound matters of extraordinary consequence As for the whole People to be concluded by the Act of a Councell as all cannot always be present supposing the dependence of Churches so nothing hinders any part thereof to intercede in any thing contrary to Christianity that is of the substance thereof or of Divine right Therefore in the Order of holding Councels which is wont to be put before the Volumes of the Councels the people is allowed to be present as they were at Jerusalem Acts XV. 12 13 22. I come now to a nice Point of the Originall Right of the Church to Tithes First-fruits and Oblations For as it cannot be pretended that the same measure which the Law provideth is due under the Gospel so it is manifest that the quality of Priests and Levites to whom they were due is ceased as much as the Sacrifices which they were to attend and it is certain that they were maintained expresly in consideration of that attendance This difficulty must be resolved by the difference between the Law and the Gospel The Law expresly provideth onely for the Ceremoniall Service of God in the Temple by Sacrifices and Figures of good things to come But no man doubteth that there were always assemblies for the Service of God all over the Country for the opportunity whereof in time Synagogues were built where the Law was taught and publick Prayers offered to God This Office of Teaching the Law cannot be restrained to the Tribe of Levi. So farre as the Prophets and their Schools of Disciples furnished it not their Consistories which had the Authority to determine what was lawfull what unlawfull were consequently charged with this Office Now they consisted not onely of the Tribe of Levi but in the first place of the best of their Cities to whom were added as assistant some of that Tribe unlesse we speak of the Priests Cities in particular for credibly the Consistories of them consisted only of Priests For that Tribe being dispersed all over the Land to gather their revenue were by that means ready to attend on this Office of assisting in Judgement and Teaching the Law So saith Josephus Antiq. IV. 8. that the Consistories of particular Cities consisted of seven Chief of every City assisted each with two of the Tribe of Levi which with a President and his Deputy or Second such as we know the High Consistory at Jerusalem had makes up the number of XXIII which the Talmud Doctors say they consisted of Therefore it is a mistake of them that think the Scribes and Pharisees whom our Lord commands to obey had usurped the Office of the Priests and Levites For what hinders the Priests and Levites to be Scribes and Pharisees themselves though other Israelites were Scribes and Pharisees besides Priests and Levites Neither Pharisees nor Priests and Levites had this authority as Pharisees or as Priests and Levites but as members or assistants of the Consistories The reason because Gods Law whereby his worship was determined was also the Civile Law of that People because the Land of Canaan was promised them upon condition of living according to it therefore the Teaching of the Law must belong to them who by the Law were to Judge and Govern the People God stirring up Prophets from time to time to clear the true meaning thereof from humane corruptions So onely the Service of the Temple and only that Tribe which attended on the Service of the Temple was to be provided for the rest being provided for by the possession of the Land of Promise But when the service of God in Spirit and Truth was to be established in all places as well as at Jerusalem and the Church incorporated by God into one Society and Common-wealth for the exercise thereof what endowment God appointed this Corporation for the Exchequer of it is best judged by what appears to have been done in the Scriptures which cannot be attributed but to the authority of the Apostles the Governours of the Church at that time At Jerusalem the Contributions were so great in the beginning of Christianity that many offered their whole estates to maintain the community of the Church Was this to oblige all Christians ever after to destroy civile society by communion of goods As if there could be no other reason why Christians should strip themselves of their estates at that time The advancement of Christianity then in the shell required continuall attendance of the whole Church upon the Service of God This withdrawing the greater part of Disciples which were poor from the means of living required greater oblations of the rich The Scripture teaches us that the whole Church continued in the Service of God So that out of the common stock of the Church common entertainment was provided for rich and poor at which entertainment the Sacrament of the Eucharist was celebrated as it was instituted by our Lord at his last Supper This is that which is called Breaking of Bread Acts II. 42 46. XX. 7. and by the Apostle 1 Cor. XI 20. the Supper of the Lord not meaning thereby the Sacrament of the Eucharist but this common entertainment at which that Sacrament was celebrated which therefore is truly called the Sacrament of the Lords Supper not the Supper of the Lord for you see the Apostle complains that because the rich and the poor supped not together therefore they did not celebrate the Supper of the Lord. The same thing it is which S.
laid them down at the Apostles feet to signifie that they submitted them to their disposing For this cause Deacons were created to execute their disposition of the same For this cause the contributions of the Church of Antiochia are consigned to the Presbyters of Jerusalem Acts XI 30. that they who were Ordained by that time for afore there is no mention of them might dispose of them under the Apostles For this cause Timothy is directed how to bestow this stock among the Widows and Presbyters that the Widows might attend upon prayer day and night and upon other good works concerning the community of the Church 1 Tim. V. 5 10. as Anna the Widow in the Gospel Luc. II. 36 37. and as the good women that kept guard about the Tabernacle Ex. XXXVIII 8. 1 Sam. II. 22. And for this cause S. Peter forbiddeth the Presbyters to domineer over the Clergy 1 Pet. V. 3. to wit in disposing of their maintenance out of this common stock of the Church Here it will be said that all this expresses no quantity ot part of every mans estate to ground a right of Tithes and that no man desires better then to give what he list And the answer is as ready that no man desires more provided he list to give what Christianity requires And that for the determination of what Christianity requires he list to stand to the perpetuall practice of the Church when as by those things which we finde recorded in the Scriptures it appears to be derived from the Apostles themselves First it is not the Law that first commanded to pay Tithes Because we know they were paid by Abraham and Jacob they that think they were not due by Right before the Law because Jacob vows them Gen. XXVIII 20. doe not remember our Vow of Baptism the subject whereof is things due before God requires them as his own before For God saith first that Tithes are his own Lev. XXVII 30. to wit by a Law in force afore the Law of Moses and then gives them to the Priests for their Service in the Tabernacle Then it cannot stand with Christianity which supposeth greater grace of God then the Law to allow a scarcer proportion to the maintenance of Gods Service then the Law requires Now the Law requires first two sorts of First fruits the one to be taken by the Priest at the Barn Num. XVIII 12. the other to be brought to the Sanctuary Exod. XXII 29. XXIII 19. Deut. XXVI 1 the quantity of either being in the moderate Account a fiftieth as S. Hierome upon Ezek. XLV agreeing with the Jews Constitutions in Maimoni of First-fruits cap. II. and of Separations cap. III. determineth it though the Scripture Ezek. XLV 13. require but the sixtieth After that a Tith of the remainder to the Levites then another Tith of the remainder to be spent in sacrificing at Jerusalem that is for the most part upon the Priests and Levites to whom and to the poor it wholly belonged every third year Deut. XIV 22 28. Ex. XXIII 19. XXXIV 20. Adde hereunto the first-born all sinne-offerings and the Priests part of peace-offerings the skins of Sacrifices which alone Philo makes a chief part of their revenue all consecrations and the Levites Cities and it will easily appear it could not be so little as a fift part of the fruit of the land that came to their share Now that any rate should be determined by the Gospel agrees not with the difference between it and the Law This constraining obedience by fear commands under penalty of vengeance from heaven to pay somuch That perswading men first freely to give themselves to God cannot doubt that they which doe so will freely part with their goods for his service And therefore if the perpetuall practice of Christians must limit the sense of those Laws which the Scripture limits not we see the first Christians at Jerusalem farre outdoe any thing that ever was done under the Law and we see that all Christian people in all succeeding ages have done what the Church now requires but to be continued To this originall Title accrues another by Consecration which is an act of man inforced by the Law of God There is in the Law of Moses one kinde of Ceremoniall Holinesse proper to persons consisting in a distance from things not really unclean but as signs of reall uncleannesse As from meats and drinks and touching creatures men and women in some diseases of which our Lord hath said that what goeth into the mouth polluteth not much lesse what a man onely toucheth and so hath shewed that all this ceaseth under the Gospel But there is another kinde of Holinesse belonging to Times and Places as well as Persons commanded in the Law upon a reason common to the Gospel when it is said Lev. XIX 30. Observe my Sabbaths and reverence my Sanctuaries For did this belong onely to the Temple or Tabernacle instituted by Gods expresse command for that ceremoniall service of God which was unlawfull any where else it might seem to be proper to the ceremoniall Law and to vanish with the Gospel But the perpetuall practice of that people shews that hereby they are commanded to use reverence in their Synagogues which were neither instituted by any written precept of the Law nor for the ceremoniall service of God which was confined to the Temple but for publick Assemblies to hear the Law read and expounded and to offer the Prayers of the people to God For in the Psalms of Asaph which is the only mention of Synagogues in the Old Testament they are called not onely Houses and Assemblies of God but also Sanctuaries as here Ps LXXIII 17. LXXIV 4 7 8. LXXXIV 13. And the Talmud Doctors related by Maimoni extend this Precept to them shewing at large the reverence which they required whereupon Philo in his Book De Legatione ad Caium cals them places of secondary Holinesse to wit in respect of the Temple And in Maimoni in the Title of Praier and the Priests Blessing cap. XI you have at large of the Holinesse of Synagogues and Schools which they esteem more Holy then Synagogues They may have joy of their Doctrine that endeavour to shew that the Jews Synagogues were not counted Holy Places because in the Gospels as well as in Eusebius Histories IV. 16. where he allegeth out of a certain ancient writing against the Montanists that none of them was ever scourged by the Jews in their Synagogues and Epiphanius against the Ebionites it appears that the Jews used to punish by scourging in their Synagogues For it hath taken so good effect as to turn Churches to Stables But he that understands their reason right will inferre the contradictory of their conclusion from it For because Synagogues were the places where matters of Gods Law were sentenced as I shewed afore therefore was that sentence to be executed in Synagogues The like reason there is for the Holinesse of Persons consecrate
though to an invisible purpose and the Power of giving Laws either to the whole or to severall parts of it of Divine Right But neither the whole nor the parts of it are necessarily convertible with any one State and yet the Church under severall States many times in extreme need of the use of that power which God hath given his Church to determine matters determinable Therefore this power cannot be vested in any of the States under which the Church is concerned but in those that have Power in behalf of the Churches respectively concerned The fourth argument is very copious from the exercise of this power in the Religion instituted by God among his ancient people of which nature there is nothing in the New Testament because in the times whereof it speaks Soveraign Powers were not Christian I have shewed in divers places of this Discourse that the High Consistory of the Jews at Jerusalem had power to determine all questions that became determinable in the matter of Laws given by God And yet there is great appearance that this Consistory it self was not constantly setled there according to Law till Josaphats time at least not the inferiour Consistories appointed by the Law of Deut. XVI 18. as the Chief by the Law of Deut. XVII 8 to be setled in the severall Cities For if so why should the Judges and Samuel ride circuit up and down the Country to minister justice according to the Law as we reade they did then Jud. V. 10. X. 4. XII 14. 1 Sam. VII 16. but not after Josaphats time And for this reason it seems Josaphat himself being to put this Law in force first sent Judges up and down the Cities 2 Chron. XVII 8 9. afterwards setled them according to the Law in the Cities of Juda as well as at Jerusalem 2 Chron. XIX 5 8. Besides Josephus in expresse terms rendring a reason of the disorder upon which the warre against Benjamin followed attributes it to this that the Consistories were not established according to Law Antiq. V. 2. And again Antiq. V. 5. he gives this for the cause why Eglon undertook to subdue the Israelites that they were in disorder and the Laws were not put in use And therefore it is justly to be presumed that the exact practice of this Law on which that of all the rest depended took not place till Josaphat applied the coactive power then in his hands to bring to effect that which God had established in point of Divine right The Consistory then by the Law is commanded to judge the People That is the Soveraign Power of the people is commanded to establish the Consistory Josaphat finds this command to take hold upon him as having the Power of that People in his hands So again God had commanded that Idolaters should be put to death and their Cities destroied the Consistory inquiring and sentencing as appears by the Jews Constitutions in Maimoni of Idolatry cap. IV. Deut. XIII 2 13 14. But suppose the disease grown too strong for the cure as we must needs suppose the Consistory unable to destroy an Idolatrous City when most Cities doe the like or to take away High Places when the Land is over-run with them then must the coactive Power of the Secular arm either restore the Law or be branded to posterity for not doing it as you see the Kings of Gods people are The Precept of building the Temple was given to the Body of the People therefore it takes hold upon David and the Powers under him his Princes his Officers and Commanders 1 Chro. XIII 2. XXVIII 1. In fine the Consistory by the Law was to determine matters undetermined in the Law whether in generall by giving Laws in questionable cases or in particular by sentencing causes But if the people slide back and cast away the yoke of the Law none but the Soveraign Power can reduce them under the Covenant of the Law to which they are born Therefore that Covenant is renued by Asa by Hezekiah by Josias by none but the King as first it was established by Moses King in Jesurun Deut. XXIX 1. XXXIII 5. 2 Chron. XV. 12 14. XXIX 10. XXXIV 31. And it is a very grosse mistake to imagine that the people renued it or any part of it without the consent of the Soveraign under Esdras and Nehemias Esd XI 1 Neh. X. 29 V. 12. For Esdras having obtained that Commission which we see Es VII 11 may well be thought thereby established in the quality of Head of the Consistory by the Soveraign Power as the Jews all report him But howsoever by that Commission we cannot doubt that he was inabled to swear them to the Law by which he was inabled to govern them in it his commission supposing a grant of full leave to live according to their Law But in Nehemias we must acknowledge a further power of Governor under the King of Persia as he cals himself expresly Neh. V. 14 15. which quality seems to me answerable to that of the Heads of the Captive Jews in Babylonia of whom we reade divers times in Josephus as well as in the Jews writings that they were Heads of their Nation in that Country having Heads of their Consistories under them at the same time as Esdras under Nehemias The proceedings then of Esdras and Nehemias as well as of the Kings of Juda prove no more then that which I said in the beginning of this Chapter that Soveraign Powers have Right to establish and restore all matters of Religion which can appear to be commanded by God For it is not in any common reason to imagine that by any Covenant of the Law renued by Esdras and Nehemias they conceived themselves inabled or obliged to maintain themselves by force in the profession and exercise of their Religion against their Soveraign in case he had not allowed it them Therefore of necessity that which they did was by Power derived by Commission from the Kings of Persia and so with reservation of their obedience to them who granting Nehemias and Esdras Power to govern the People in their Religion must needs be understood to grant them both the free profession and exercise of the same But having shewed that the Church hath Power by Divine Right to establish by a generall Act which you may call a Canon Constitution or Law all that Gods Law determineth not mediately and by consequence I conceive it remains proved by these particulars done under the Old Testament that the Church is to determine but the determinations of the Church to be maintained by the coactive Power of the Secular arm seeing they cannot come to effect in any Christian State otherwise Which also is immediately proved by some acts recorded in Scripture whereby that is limited which Gods Law had not determined It is said 1 Chro. XXV 1. That David and the Captains of the Militia divided the sonnes of Asaph Heman and Jeduthun to the service of God Here it were an
in his Gospel hath left concerning Mariage For if this be peculiar to Christians as Christians then whatsoever becomes questionable upon the interpretation of this Law concerning the Church as it is the Church must needs fall under the sentence of those that are inabled to conclude the Society of the Church And therefore it is without question as ancient as Christianity that no Mariage be made which the Church alloweth not the Benediction whereof upon Mariages is a sign of the allowance of the Church presupposed as that upon the Mariage of Booz and Ruth Ruth IV. 11. presupposeth the act to be allowed by the Elders or Consistory of Bethlehem as you have it afore These difficulties thus voided it remains that the Secular Powers stand bound in conscience to inforce the Jurisdiction of the Church where the exercise of it produceth nothing contrary to the principles of Christianity or the quiet of the State As for the interesse of the State in Ordinations the same reason holds It is very manifest by many examples of commendable times under Christian Emperors that many Ordinations have been made at the instance and command of Emperors and Soveraign Princes And why not what hindreth them to make choice of fitter persons then the Clergy and People can agree to choose And what hindreth the Church upon consideration of their choice to reform their own But when Soveraign Powers by Generall Laws forbid Ordinations to proceed but upon persons nominated by themselves how then shall the Right of the Church take place or what shall be the effect of S. Pauls precept to Timothy To lay hands hastily on no man lest he partake of other mens sins Which cannot take place unlesse he that Ordain be free not to Ordain The President Thuanus writing of the Concordates between Leo the tenth and Francis the first by which the Canonicall way of Election of Bishops was abolished in France saith freely that that great Prince never prospered after that Act giving this for his reason because thereby that course of electing Bishops was taken away which had been introduced from the beginning by the Apostles In fine of this particular I shall need to say no more but this according to the generall reason premised that qualities ordained by the constitution of the Church are to be conferred by persons qualified so to doe by the constitution of the Church But with this moderation that Secular Powers be satisfied not onely that the persons promoted be not prejudiciall to the Peace of the State whereof they have charge by their proper qualities but also that as Christians they be not assistant to the promotion of those who professe the contrary of that which they as Christians professing are bound to maintain In the last place it will not be difficult from the premises to determine the interesse of the State in setling maintaining and disposing of the indowment of the Church For seeing the reasons premised which now are laught at by those that will not understand wherein Christianity consists have prevailed so far with all Christian people that all Tithes and many other Oblations and Indowments are and have been in all parts consecrated to God as the First-fruits of Christians goods for the maintenance of his Service it remains the duty of the Secular Sword to maintain the Church in that right For that publick Power that shall lay hands on such goods shall rob both God and the People God in respect of the Act of Consecration past upon such goods the People in respect of the Originall right and reason of the Church which first moved Christians to consecrate the same By virtue of which right that which first was consecrated being taken away by force Christian people remain no lesse obliged to separate from the remainder of their poverty that which shall be proportionable to that which all Christian people have always consecrated to God out of their estates And those that perswade good Christians that such consecrations have proceeded only from the cousenage of the Clergy for their own advantage may as well perswade them that they were cousened when they were perswaded to be Christians seeing such consecrations have been made by all Christian people As for the disposing of that which is given to the publick use of the Church I say not the same I hold it necessary that the Church satisfie the State that whatsoever is given to such use may be to the common good of the people and so leave the imperfection of Laws to blame that it is not A thing which I think may very reasonably be done For first all Cathedrall Churches being by the institution of the Apostles intire Bodies in themselves distinct from other Churches according to that which hath been proved of the dependence of Churches all Oblations to any Church originally belong to the Body thereof in common at the disposing of the Bishop and Presbyters thereof which is known to have been the Primitive Order of the Church derived from the practice of the Apostles which I have declared out of the Scriptures Though they have complied with the bounty of those that have indowed Parish Churches and consented to limit the indowments of every one of them to it self alone Secondly it is manifest that the Clergy are under such a Discipline of the Primitive Church that so long as they continue to live in such a discipline they can neither waste the indowment of the Church upon themselves nor use it to the advancement of their Families Which Discipline if the Secular Power be imploied to retrive it will not be thereby destructive to the Power of the Church but cumulative As likewise if it be imploied to the most advantageous distribution of that masse of Church goods which lies affected and deputed to any Cathedrall Church through the whole Diocese thereof in case the distribution made by Humane Right appear prejudiciall to those charitable purposes which are the means by which the Service of God through that Church or Diocese is maintained and advanced Provided always that a greater Sacrilege be not committed by robbing the Bishop and Presbyters of the Right and Power which they have from the Apostles in disposing of the indowment of their Church These things promised it is easie to undertake that there never was so great a part of the fruits of this Land mortified and put out of commerce and applied and affected to the Church but that it was in that estate more advantageous to the publick strength security and plenty of the Nation as well as to the service of God and the charitable maintenance of those that attend it in case the Secular Power had been improved to dispose of it for the best then it can be in any particular hands especially in the hands of Sacrilege CHAP. V. How the Church may be Reformed without violating Divine Right What Privileges and Penalties a Christian State may inforce Christianity with The Consent of the Church is the
two cases of Religion the first of Idolaters the second of those that disobey the Consistory But it is to be considered that Idolatry is a sin which the light of nature convinceth and is always attended with the consequences of such horrible sins as the Apostle declareth that God suffered the Gentiles to fall into for their Idolatries in the beginning of the Epistle to the Romanes Besides that Penalty by the Law lies but in respect of the seven Nations whom God for their Idolatries and the consequences thereof such as I have mentioned gave up to destruction by the sword of his people on whom he bestowed their inheritance And in respect of Israelites whom God having entred into Covenant with on condition to serve him alone had thereupon endowed with Secular power to punish the transgressors of it So that the power of inflicting death in these cases proceedeth upon the sentence of destruction and death pronounced by God against the seven Nations and committed to the execution of his People And upon the Soveraign power estated upon the people by virtue of their Covenant with God Which though more then Humane for the Originall yet must needs be available according to Humane Right to the same effect which the same Power established by Title of Humane Right is able to produce And therefore this Penalty by these Laws cannot belong to any that absolutely refuse to submit to Christianity Besides it is to be observed that those acts which this Law punishes with death are specified by the Law to be the worshipping of the Sun and Moon and other Gods Exod. XXII 20. Deut. XVII 3. the perswading to worship other Gods and for Cities to fall from God to doe it Deut. XIII 5 6 12. and therefore this punishment cannot be extended to other Acts which by interpretation and consequence may be argued into the generall nature or rather notion of Idolatries A thing necessary to be said because it is manifest that there have been those that have made reading Service or a Sermon much more kneeling at the Communion Idolatry who if they should proceed to improve their madnesse to that consequence which naturally it produceth must proceed to destroy Civile Society by destroying all them whom in their madnesse they take for Idolaters as that wretched person did his Father for perswading him to receive the Communion kneeling As for those that disobeyed the Consistory it is to be remembred that hath been formerly observed that Religion and the Civile State of Gods ancient people made but one Society by virtue of the Law that estated them in the Land of Promise upon condition of worshipping God and governing themselves in their Civile life according to the same By consequence whereof whosoever should refuse to stand to that judgement which God by the Law appointeth to determine the differences which should arise about the interpretation and limitation of that which the Law had not expressed must indanger a breach among the people which it is all one whether you call Rebellion or Schism Now it is no inconvenience to grant that whosoever shall pretend under the Title of Christianity to trouble the Civile peace of that people and State wherein he liveth be thought guilty of such punishment as the height of his offence shall deserve Because as this crime is most capitall as nearest concerning the publick so is it most manifest that Christianity cannot be wronged by the punishment of it seeing it hath been shewed that Christianity enableth no man to trouble the publick peace So that if any man make it a part of his Religion to maintain his Religion by force being by such profession fallen from the innocence of Christianity he is justly exposed to the violence of all temporall Laws that punish those which trouble the publick peace This is the case of them that thought themselves tied in conscience by the Bull of Pius the fift against Q. Elizabeth and it is the case of all them that under any title of Religion whatsoever pretend to maintain the profession or exercise thereof by faction or force For it is easie to see that the Primitive Christians maintain themselves so against the Gentiles that supposing them no Christians yet it doth appear that they could not rightfully persecute them for their Christianity Which none can maintain but those that professe to assert their Christianity by nothing else but by suffering for it And here it is worth our noting that about the time of our Lord there was a Constitution of the Consistory against Rebellious Elders as they call them that is such as having attained the degree of Doctors of the Law should Teach any thing to be lawfull or unlawfull by the Law contrary to the determination of the Consistory that they should be put to death as you may see in Maimoni in that Title Which how far it was ever in force is hard to be said because by the Gospels we understand that the Nation had not power of life and death at that time For that it was about that time that they say it was established appears because they report it to have been made in regard of the differences then on foot between the Scholars of Hillel and Sammai which we know were not long before our Lords time This Constitution is nothing else but the limitation of that which the Law of Deut. XVII 8. establisheth to particular circumstances And upon supposition of this Constitution it is that our Lord expresseth the difference between Moses Law and his Gospel when he saith Mat. V. 19. He that shall break the least of these Commandements and teach men so shall be least in the Kingdome of heaven but he that teacheth and doeth them shall be great in the Kingdome of heaven For the very terms of that Constitution being death to him that should both teach and doe contrary to the determination of the Consistory it is manifest that our Lord alluding to that Constitution of the Synagogue declareth hereby that on the contrary there is no penalty of death upon him that should teach and doe contrary to his precepts as those of the Consistory but greater that is to be least in the Kingdome of heaven Whereby he sheweth that the Gospel appointeth no temporall punishment to those that break Christs precepts but denies not that Civile States might For the Gospel supposing and establishing Civile Society supposeth also those Penalties without which it subsisteth not And the punishment of those that violate Civile Society under the title of Christianity is not by the Gospel but by the Civile Power which it presupposeth and voideth not because Preaching that Christianity cannot be prejudiciall to States it confirmeth as to Christianity that power which all States have towards all Religions to see that they prove not prejudiciall to the publick peace We have then two cases of Religion punishable with death The first when that which is contrary to the Law of Nature is by the
Law of his Country pretendeth to be for his good and to relish it aright when upon due consideration it appears to be no otherwise And so the punishment of the Law tends to the same purpose as all afflictions are sent by God to drive men to their good against their will And that those who fainedly submit to Christianity may as Aristotle says be Sun-burnt by walking in the Sun though they walk not in the Sun for that purpose That is by trying the effect of Christianity in the worship of God and reformation of mens lives among whom they live by being under such Laws may be won to imbrace it for it self which at first they imbraced for the worldly privilege of it To which purpose there can be no mean so effectuall as the restoring of the publick discipline of Penance in the Church By which it becomes most evident what inward esteem men set upon Christianity by the esteem they set upon the Communion of the Church And that the sentence of Excommunication is abhorred not for the temporall Penalties which by civile Laws attend upon it but for the Society of the Church which it intercepteth And truly this last inconvenience of Hypocriticall profession can by no means be avoided wheresoever Christianity or any opinion supposed to be a necessary part of it is made the Religion of any State For evidence whereof I must repeat first that which was supposed afore that there are but two reasons for which any Religion can be said to be the Religion of any State to wit Privileges and Penalties In the second place I must suppose here that as exemption from any penalty is a privilege so exemption from a privilege is a penalty Wherefore seeing no Religion can be the Religion of any State but by such privileges as another Religion is not capable of it is manifest that Toleration of Religion as it is a Privilege in comparison of punishment so it is a punishment in comparison of that Religion which is privileged These things supposed it will not be difficult to render a reason why Christianity must of necessity decay and why the power of it is so decaied since the world came into the Church For when men came not to Christianity till they had digested the hardship of the Crosse and resolved to preferre the next world afore this it is no marvell if they endured what they had foreseen and resolved against But seeing temporall privilege as well as temporall punishment may belong to true Christianity no marvell if men follow the reason of privilege not of Christianity when they goe both together though by consequence they will be ready to change as the privilege changes Now as to the Privileges which Christianity is endowed with by the Act of God or made capable of by the same from Soveraign Powers when they make Christianity the Religion of those States which they govern It is very easie to resolve from the premises that the Clergy are not exempt by Divine Right from any Law of those States under which they live For seeing the Clergy is a quality which presupposeth Christianity and subsisteth by virtue thereof and that no quality subsisting by the constitution of the Church or by Christianity endoweth any man with any temporall right wherewith he is not invested by the quality which he holdeth in his own Country it followeth that no man by being of the Clergy can be privileged against Secular Power or against those Laws which are the Acts of it And therefore the example of Abiathar High Priest removed from his Office by Solomon for Rebellion and Treason 1 Kings II. 26. to wit because as it is there expressed he had deserved to be removed out of the world is an effectuall argument to this purpose For if that Office to which his person was designed by Gods expresse Law supposing him to be lawfull High Priest might be taken away for a crime committed against the Majesty of the King subsisting by an Act subsequent to the Law established by God because the Law which allowed a King enjoined obedience by all the Penalties of the Law And indeed seeing the Clergy is but a degree qualifying men in Christianity above the People those temporall privileges which by Divine right are pretended to belong to the Clergy must needs belong to the People in an inferiour degree by the same right much more the Clergy presupposing the Church as the Church the State must needs leave all men that are qualified by it obliged upon the same termes as it findes them to the States wherein they professe themselves Christians Which cannot be when both Societies of the Church and the Commonwealth consist of the same persons But though the Clergy be not exempt from any Secular Jurisdiction by Divine Right yet they are so capable of exemption by Divine Right that no man can deny the Privilege granted by the first Christian Emperors the Causes of the Clergy to be heard and determined within the Clergy themselves to be very agreeable to reason of Christianity For if our Lord hath commanded and the Apostles ordained the differences of Christians to be ended within themselvs that they might not prove a scandall to Christianity it is but correspondent consequent thereunto that for avoiding the scandalls which the differences of the Clergy may occasion or to make them lesse publick they be ended within themselves seeing it is manifest to all understandings that the reverence of the Clergy is of great interesse to the advancement of Christianity On the other side seeing the Discipline which the Clergy are liable to by Christianity is so much stricter then that which the Civile Laws of any Commonwealth whatsoever can require and determine that Clergy men cannot incurre the penalties of Criminall Laws but they must be supposed to have violated the stricter discipline of the Church which they are under afore It follows that it is so farre from Christianity to privilege them against such Laws that the Church cannot otherwise be cleared of the scandall then by Ecclesiasticall censures correspondent to the temporall punishments which they incurre But if thus it be true that no man by virtue of his Christianity is endowed with any Secular Privilege of that Civile Society wherein he liveth By the same reason it must be true that no man is by his Christianity uncapable of any Right common to all members of the State in which he liveth unlesse some Law of Christianity can be produced whereby it may appear to be incompetible with the quality he holdeth in the Church Which hath been pretended with much noise to render the Clergy of this Church uncapable of imploiment in Secular affairs in point of Divine Right but will be very difficult to prove by the Scriptures in regard that Christianity containeth nothing but that which tendeth to the maintenance of Civile Society as on the other side Civile Society and the Powers thereof tendeth to the maintenance of
Christianity Therefore the words of our Lord That his Disciples should not be as the Gentiles among whom the great ones domineer over the rest and in so doing were called Gracious Lords Mat. XX. 25. Mar. X. 42 43. Luc. XXII 25 26. being spoken to his Disciples as Christians not as Apostles in commendation of humility and meeknesse a quality concerning all Christians cannot prove the Clergy forbidden secular imploiment but they must by the same reason inforce all Civile Power to be unlawfull among Christians as also in the Society of the Church all superiority of power as unlawfull as that which is here challenged on behalf of Bishops and Presbyters On the other side that which they are supposed to destroy they manifestly presuppose that is to say a Superiority of power among the Disciples of Christ by the names of greater and lesse competible with the quality of his Disciples And therefore concern not the lawfulnesse of power but the right use of it and so forbid no sort of Christians any power whereof any Christian is capable The words of S. Paul are more pertinent to this purpose 2 Tim. II. 4. for it is a comparison that he borroweth from the custome of the Romane Empire wherein Soldiers as they were exempted from being Tutors to mens persons or Curators to their estates so they were forbidden to be Proctors of other mens causes to undertake husbandry or merchandise Therefore when S. Paul saith to Timothy No man that goeth to the army intangleth himself in businesse of the world that he may please him that imprested him He raises indeed a particular exhortation to Timothy upon a generall ground of reason appearing in the Romane Laws that those of Timothies quality oblige not themselves to businesse inconsistent with it But can he be understood hereby to make that a Law to the Militia of the Church which was a Law to the Militia of the Empire Or can an exhortation drawn from a comparison be thought to create a generall Law to all of Timothies quality in generall or in particular further then the reason of the comparison will inferre in every particular case It is true that Soldiers were forbidden businesse of profit were exempted emploiments of publick service as was that of Tutors and Curators because thereby they became obliged to the Laws or to their own profit to the prejudice of their attendance upon their colours That is to say that for the great distance between Civile and Military emploiment in that State the Laws had rendred Soldiers uncapable of such qualities And so it is confessed that the Laws of the Church the Canons rendred the Clergy uncapable of the like during the distance between the Church and the State not yet Christian For so we find that in S. Cyprians time Clergy men were forbidden to be Tutors or Curators for the like reason because their obligation to the Laws in that estate would have excused them to the Church And because that by reason of the distance between the State of the Church at that time it could not tend to any publick good of the Society of the Church But in States that professe Christianity can it be said that the attendance of Clergy men upon the affairs of the Commonwealth cannot be to the publick good of the Church consisting of all the same persons onely in a distinct reason and quality whereof the Commonwealth consisteth To me it seems farre otherwise that in all publick Assemblies of States whether for making Laws or for Jurisdiction or for Counsell or for preservation of publick Peace to banish those from them whose quality and profession entitles them to the most exact knowledge and practice of Christianity is to banish the consideration of Christianity from the conclusions and effects of those Assemblies For though it be seen by experience that the Clergy come short of the holinesse and exact conversation in Christianity which they professe yet it will be always seen likewise that the people fail more and before them and that they are first corrupted by and with the people then corrupters of the people And as for the service of the Church which they cannot attend upon in the mean time supposing the Order here challenged to be instituted by the Apostles the inconvenience ceaseth For supposing all Cathedrall Churches to be Corporations trusted to provide for the government of all Congregations contained in them in Church matters and the Ministery of the Offices of Divine Service at the same whatsoever Clergy man shall by publick imploiment destitute his Congregation shall leave it to the care of the Church originally entrusted with it Which Churches being all Nurseries and Seminaries of Clergy designed for the Service of their respective Bodies may easily by the means thereof see all Offices discharged from time to time to all Congregations which they contain And this is that which I desired to say here in generall to this most difficult point of the Privileges and Penalties which Christianity may be established and enforced with by a State that professes it As for the particulars which upon those generall reasons may be disputed in point of lawfull or unlawfull as also for the point of expedience whereby that which in generall may be done ought or ought not to be done when the case is put I leave to them that are qualified and obliged to proceed in determining the same To come then to the great difficulty proposed it is to be acknowledged that the Power of the Church in the persons of them to whom it is derived by continuall succession is a Law ordained by the Apostles for the unity and edification of the Church So that no part of the Whole can stand obliged by any Act that is not done by the Councell and Synod of Bishops respective to that part of the Church which it pretendeth to oblige But withall it is to be acknowledged that there are abundance of other Laws given the Church by our Lord and his Apostles whether they concern matters of Faith or matter of Works whether immediately concerning the salvation of particular Christians or only the publick Order of the Church which proceeding from the same if not a greater power then the Succession of the Church are to be retained all and every one of them with the same Religion and conscience And with this limitation the distinction which the Church of Rome is usually answered with is to be admitted between succession of Persons and succession of Doctrine Not as if it were not a part of Christian doctrine that the Succession of the Apostles is to be obeyed as their Ordinance but because there are many other points of doctrine delivered the Church by our Lord and his Apostles all and every one of them equally to be regarded with it Again I have shewed that the Secular Power is bound to protect the Ecclesiasticall in determining all things which are not determined by our Lord and his Apostles and to give force
and effect to the acts of the same But in matters already determined by them as Laws given to the Church if by injury of time the practice become contrary to the Law the Soveraign Power being Christian and bound to protect Christianity is bound to imploy it self in giving strength first to that which is ordained by our Lord and his Apostles By consequence if those whom the power of the Church is trusted with shall hinder the restoring of such Laws it may and ought by way of penalty to such persons to suppresse their power that so it may be committed to such as are willing to submit to the superiour Ordinance of our Lord and his Apostles A thing throughly proved both by the Right of Secular Powers in advancing Christianity with penalties and in establishing the exercise of it and in particular by all the examples of the pious Kings of Gods people reducing the Law into practice and suppressing the contrary thereof Seeing then that it is agreed upon by all that professe the Reformation that many and divers things ordained by our Lord and his Apostles whether to be beleeved or to be practised in the Church were so abolished by injury of time that it was requisite they should be restored though against the will of those that bore that power which the Apostles appointed necessary to conclude the Church it followeth that the necessity of Reformation inferreth not the abolishing of the Succession of the Apostles but that more Laws of our Lord and his Apostles and of more moment were preferred before it where it could not regularly be preserved Which when it may be preserved is to be so far preserved before all designs which may seem to humane judgement expedient to the advancement of Christianity that whosoever shall endevour without such cause to destroy the power derived from the Apostles by conferring it upon those that succeed them not in it and much more whosoever shall doe it to introduce Laws contrary to the Ordinance of the Apostles shall be thereby guilty of the horrible crime of Schism For it is to be remembred that there are some things immediately necessary to the salvation of particular Christians whether concerning Faith or good manners and there are other things necessary to the publick order and peace of the Church that by it Christians may be edified in all matters of the first kinde The denying of any point of the first kinde may for distinctions sake be called Heresie when a man is resolute and obstinate in it But in the other kinde it is not a false opinion that makes a man a Schismatick till he agree to destroy the Unity of the Church for it It can scarce fall out indeed that any man proceed to destroy the Unity of the Church without some false opinion in Christianity Yet it is not the opinion but the destroying of a true or erecting of a false power in the Church that makes Schism And it can scarce fall out that any man should broach a doctrine contrary to Christianity without an intent to make a Sect apart yet onely a false perswasion in matters necessary to salvation is enough to make an Heretick This is the reason that both Heresie and Schism goes many times under the common name of Heresies or Sects among the ancient Fathers of the Church Otherwise it is truly said that Heresie is contrary to Faith Schism to Charity because the crime of Heresie is found in a single person that denies some point of Faith though the name of it be generall onely to those and to all those that make Sects apart In the mean time we must consider that the word Schism signifies the state as well as the crime in which sense all that are in the state of Schism are not in the crime of Schism but those that give the cause of it For as it is resolved that Warre cannot be just on both sides that make War so is it true that the cause of all divisions in the Church must needs be only on one side and not on both And that side which gives the cause are rightfully called Schismaticks though both sides be in the state of Schism as he in S. Augustine said of Tarquin and Lucrece that being two in one act yet one of them onely committed Adultery If then the Laws given by our Lord and his Apostles be restored by consent of some part of the Councell and Synod requisite to oblige any respective part of the Church and the Succession of the Apostles propagated by them alone in opposition to the rest that consent not unto them the cause of Schism cannot lie on this side which concurreth with the Primitive Succession of our Lord and his Apostles but upon them that violate the Communion of the Church by refusing such Laws and the right of such persons as acknowledge the same the condition of the Unity and Communion of the Church consisting as much in the rest of Laws given by our Lord and the Apostles as in that of the Succession and power of the Apostles Which is the case of the Church of England But whoever by virtue of any authority under heaven shall usurp Ecclesiasticall Power shall usurp the Succession of the Apostles and take it from them that rightfully stand possest of it upon pretense of governing the Church by such Laws as he is really perswaded but falsly to be commanded the Church by our Lord and his Apostles this whosoever shall doe or be accessory to is guilty of Schism The issue then of this whole dispute stands upon this point how and by what means it may be evidenced what Laws of the Faith and Manners of particular Christians of the publick Order of the Church have been given the Church by our Lord and his Apostles A point which cannot be resolved aright but by them which resolve aright for what reasons and upon what grounds and motives they are Christians For without doubt the true reasons and motives of Christianity if they be pursued and improved by due consequence will either discover the truth of any thing disputable in the matter of Christianity or that it is not determinable by any revealed truth Here it is much to be considered that the truth of things revealed by God is not manifested to the mindes of them to whom and by whom God reveals them to the World by the same means as to them whom he speaks to by their means Moses and the Prophets our Lord and his Apostles when they were sent to declare the will of God to his People were first assured themselves that what they were sent to declare to the world was first revealed to themselves by God and then were enabled to assure the world of the same By what means they were assured themselves concerns me not here to enquire It is enough that they were always enabled to do such works as might assure the world that they were sent by God For how could they demand
by the immediate dictate of the Spirit by the same reason can conclude nothing to be the will of God and the true intent of his Word without it This if it were meant onely of the testimony of the Spirit of God witnessing with our Spirit that we are the children of God and sealing the assurance of this favour to our persons and actions then would it not take away the grounds upon which and the means by which we are effectually moved and brought to be Christians both in profession and in deed So that by consequence means might be had whereby a man 's own Spirit might be enabled to discern between the dictates of Gods Spirit and that of the world But being advanced in answer to this difficulty as the first ground of faith and the last resolution of it cannot be so understood But of necessity importeth that no man can be assured by the assurance of faith of any truth without that means by which God reveals himself to them by whom he declares his will to others That either any person on behalf of the Church or any private spirit should pretend to any such endowment is contrary to common sense and their own proceedings When they use the like means to inform themselves both why to beleeve the Scripture and what the meaning of it and the will of God is as other men doe And if they doe pretend more they must shew such evidence as God hath ordained to convince the world before they can pretend to oblige any man to beleeve them Besides that so it would not be possible to render a reason why God hath given his Scriptures at all seeing that notwithstanding he must furnish either some persons in behalf of the Church or all beleevers with revelations to convince them what is his will and meaning by the Scriptures But if they admit of such means as God hath appointed Christians to decide whether it be the Spirit of God or of the world that witnesseth with their Spirit then is the question where it was Because as God gives his Spirit to those that are Christians upon such qualities and to such intents as they who pretend to the Spirit of God ought to finde in themselves and to propose to themselves and no other so are they assured that it is the Spirit of God that moves them because they are assured of those qualities and intentions in themselves and by no other meanes Now having shewed before upon what grounds Christianity is to be imbraced I demand whether it be in the compasse of any reason that is convinced of the truth of Christianity to question whether the Scriptures are to be received or not Certainly he were a strange man that should consent to be a Jew or a Mahumetane and yet make a question whether the Book of the Law came from Moses or the Alcoran from Mahomet or not Therefore supposing that we stand convict of the truth of Christianity by the same means we stand assured that God hath caused those great works to be done by Moses and the Prophets by our Lord and his Apostles by which the world stands convict that they were sent by God and by the same that the Scriptures wherein those works and their doctrine is related are from God Neither can the Church act to the assuring of any body herein as the Church but as a multitude of men endowed with common sense which cannot agree to deceive or to be deceived For if the profession of Christianity goe before the being of the Church and Christianity cannot be received till it be acknowledged with the records thereof to be from God then this assurance though it come from the agreement of the men that make the Church goes in nature before the quality of a Church and therefore comes as well from the consent of Jews for the Old Testament as of Christians for the New Nor let it trouble any man that by this means faith may seem to be the work of reason not the grace of God seeing it may very reasonably be demanded Where is the necessity of grace to enable a man to beleeve what he sees reason to beleeve For though the matter of faith be credible of it self yet it is not evident of it self though sufficient reason may be shewed why a man ought to beleeve yet on the other side there are many scandals and stumbling blocks in the way to hinder him from beleeving the chiefe of which is the offence of the Crosse whereof our Lord saith Happy is he that is not offended at me For it cannot seem strange that a man should refuse to beleeve that which he sees sufficient reason to convince him to beleeve when as by beleeving he becomes liable to bear the Crosse of Christ specially not being inforced by the light of reason evidencing the truth of Christianity and determining the assent of the minde as fire does wood to burn but swaied by externall motives working upon the minde according as they finde it disposed to goodnesse For when this disposition is not perfectly wrought by Gods grace nothing hinders sufficient motives to prove uneffectuall to them whom the Crosse of Christ scandalizeth This being resolved it follows by necessary consequence upon what reasons and by what means the meaning of the Scriptures or rather the will of God concerning all matters questioned in Christianity is determinable For it is not the same thing many times to know the meaning of the Scriptures as it is to know how far it is Gods will that it binde the Church The name of the Scripture inforceth no more but that all is true which it containeth Now it containeth many times the sayings and doings of evill men as well as of good of Satan himself sometimes wherein it intends onely to assure that such and such things were said and done And not to insist on the Law of Moses which is all the word of God and no part of it binding to us as the Law of Moses because another disposition of Gods will may appear by other Scriptures in the New Testament it self are found many things that now have not the force of precepts though it appear that they did sometimes binde the Church Such is the practice of the Feasts of Love which S. Paul presses so hard as I shewed afore such is his precept that women be vailed men bare when they pray in the Church the decree of the Apostles at Jerusalem against eating blood and things strangled and sacrificed to Idols the precept of S. James of anointing the sick the ceremonies of Baptism which I shewed afore out of S. Paul to have been in use in the Primitive Church yea the very custome of drenching in Baptism which no man doubts but the institution signifies and yet is now scarce any where in use If therefore there be question of the will of God what is the true meaning of the Scriptures and how far it bindes the Church the
it themselves afore Especially if we suppose them to receive the same Power to be exercised by the same Laws which those that received it from the Apostles themselves had and acknowledged from the beginning The consequence of all this is plain enough The resolution of Gulielmus Antissiodorensis among the Schoole Doctors is well known and approved That the Order of Bishops in case of necessity may be propagated by Presbyters supposing that they never received Power to do such an Act from them that had it My reason makes me bold to resolve further that in the case which is put Christian people may appoint themselves Bishops Presbyters and Deacons provided it be with such limits of Power to be exercised under such Laws as are appointed before by our Lord and his Apostles And that upon these terms they ought to be acknowledged by the rest of the Church whensoever there is opportunity of communicating with the same provided that they and their Churches submit to such further Laws as the rest of the Church hath provided for the further regulating of it self according as the part is to submit to the determination of the whole And that this acknowledgement of them would be effectuall in stead of solemne Ordination by Imposition of Hands of persons endowed with that Power which is intended to be conveyed by the same Whereby I make not personall succession to be no Precept of God which if it were not then no Schism were necessarily a Sin and by consequence all that can be said of the Society of the Church would be a Fable but commanded in Order to another of living in the Society of a Church and therefore not binding when both are not possible but the Chief is Beside this main reason included in my resolution drawn from the Rank of Precepts given by God as these are the same may be concluded by this consequence That whosoever will consider how many Ordinances instituted by the Apostles have been either totally abolished or very much changed by the necessity of time rendring them uselesse to the succeeding condition of the Church will not marvell to see their authority maintained in the rest of the Laws wherewith they have regulated the Church without perpetuall succession where it cannot be had though otherwise not to be abolished without sacrilege How far this was the case of those whom I speak of I will not undertake It seems they could not have this authority propagated by them that then had it not consenting to those Apostolical Laws which as it is agreed among us were necessarily to be restored in the Church It seems also that authority was not altogether wanting to the authors of such reformations being still of some Order in the Church For Presbyters though they succeed not the Apostles in the Chief authority established by them in all Churches yet their office was from the beginning to assist them in the government of those Churches whereof they were made Presbyters not by way of execution of their commands onely as Deacons but by exercising the same power where they could not discharge it themselves though with dependence on them in all matters not determined afore Here was some degree of necessity to bar the personall Succession of the Apostles But no necessity can be alleged why they erected not Bishops Presbyters and Deacons over themselves with such limits of Power as the Apostles from the beginning determined seeing it is manifest that the superiority of them was generally thought to come from the corruption of the Papacy not from the institution of the Apostles And therefore cannot be excused by necessity because they did not finde themselves in necessity but by their own false perswasion created it to themselves Which notwithstanding seeing they professe all that is necessary to the salvation of all Christians either in point of Faith or Manners seeing as to the publick Order of the Church they intended and desired and sought to restore that which to their best understanding came from the institution of our Lord and his Apostles they cannot easily be condemned to have forfeited the being of a Church out of which there is no salvation by this or other mistakes of like consequence of them that consider the abuses from whence they departed For the Church is necessarily a Humane though no Civile Society which we are commanded by God in the first place to entertain And as there is no Society of men wherein a particular member can prevail to settle such Laws and such Order as are properest to the end of it so must he live and die out of Communion with the Church that staies till he finde a Church that maintains all that was instituted by our Lord and his Apostles Wherefore though that which they have done contrary to the Apostles order cannot be justified yet there is a reasonable presumption that God excuses it being no part of that which he hath commanded all to beleeve to salvation or which he hath commanded particular men to doe Because the publick order of the Church is commanded particular persons as members of the Church which cannot be done without consent of the whole that is of them that are able to conclude it But if any Secular Power upon earth shall presume to erect this Ecclesiasticall Power by taking it away from them that lawfully have it that is by an Act of those that have the Power before done by virtue of some Humane Law which Act the Law of God doth not make void and giving it to those that have it not by any such Act And that upon another ground then that which hath been specified of bringing back into force and use such Laws of our Lord and his Apostles as have by neglect of time been abolished and brought out of use this Power whatsoever it is shall not fail in so doing to incurre the Crime of Schism and all that concurre or consent to the bringing of such an Act into effect shall necessarily incurre the same Much more if it be done with a further intent by the means of persons thus invested with Ecclesiasticall Power to introduce Laws contrary to the institution of our Lord and his Apostles But though it is possible to imagine a case in which the consent of Christians may erect an Ecclesiasticall authority over themselves by means whereof they may live in the Society of a Church yet there is no manner of case imaginable in which any people or any power but the Soveraign can establish or maintain the exercise of Religion in any thing which they conceive never so necessary to Christianity by the power of the Sword which is the force of the Seculararm The reason is peremptory because the profession of Christ his Crosse is essentiall to Christianity or rather the whole substance and marrow of it For if it were lawfull for any persons whatsoever to defend themselves by force upon no other title but for the maintenance of themselves in the
And so Elizeus curseth the children to death on purpose to punish the affront offered his person In all which particulars you have manifest characters of the Law inflicting death for the punishment of sin whereas under the Gospel which giveth life the inflicting of bodily punishment serveth to procure the good of the world by manifesting the truth of the Gospel and the presence of God in his Church which was known and supposed under the Law because those who had received the Law could not make any question that God was amongst his people and spoke to them by his Prophets When I say that it might be lawfull to take arms upon the title of Religion under the Law I say not that it was so in all cases or that it was not lawfull for the Jews to be subject to forein Powers which was the doctrine of Judas of Galilee complained of by Josephus but that it was possible for some case to fall out wherein it might be lawfull As for the conceit of Judas of Galilee it is manifestly taken away by Gods command to the Jews under Nabuchodorosor Jer. XXIX 7. Seek the peace of the City to which I have sent you Captives for in the peace thereof you shall have peace And it is most remarkable that our Lord being falsly accused of this doctrine to Pilate by the Jews it pleased God to suffer it so far to prevail afterwards that the arms which they took afterwards against the Romanes and the miseries which they endured by the Zelotes and finally the ruine of the City Temple and Nation must needs be imputed to this doctrine which they falsly accused our Lord of to gain the good will of the Romanes But of Christianity it must be said on the contrary that there is no case possible wherein it can be just to take arms for preservation or reformation of it upon the title thereof that is to say where there is not a Power of bearing arms established by some other title of humane right For where there is any such Power and Right established upon a title which the Law of Nations justifieth it is not to be said that Christianity voideth or extinguisheth the same seeing it hath been said that it preserveth the state of this world upon the same terms in which they are when it is imbraced But neverthelesse it moderateth the use of it so that it cannot with Christianity be imploied in very many cases in which the Law of Nature and Nations justifies the use of it These things thus premised it will be easie to shew that the Presbyterians offer wrong when they demand that the superiority of Bishops over Presbyters be proved to be of Divine Right by some Precept of Gods Law recorded in the Scriptures Supposing that otherwise it will be in the Secular Power of it self to erect an Ecclesiasticall Power by taking it from them that have it and giving it to them that have it not and requiring that so it be done For it is notorious to the world that from the beginning they claimed that Presbyteries should be erected in stead of the Government of the Church of England upon this ground that the Presbyteries are commanded by God and that therefore the superiority of Bishops as contrary to his Law is to be abolished And that upon this pretense the people were drawn in to seek the innovation endevoured at this time So that to require now that it be proved that the superiority of Bishops is commanded by God to be unchangeable by men otherwise that it be changed is to require that the conclusion may stand without any premises to prove it Notwithstanding to passe by this advantage suppose we the superiority of Bishops neither forbidden nor commanded but introduced by Ecclesiasticall Right grounded upon the Power given the Church of giving Laws to the Church by determining that which Gods Law determineth not Supposing but not granting this to be true it will remain neverthelesse without the compasse of any Secular Power upon earth to erect this Ecclesiasticall Power by taking it from them which have it and giving it to them which have it not For wheresoever there is a Church and the Government thereof not contrary to Gods Law in those hands which have it by mans there the Apostles precept of obeying the Governors of the Church 1 Thess V. 14. Heb. XIII 17. must needs oblige the People to those Governors that are established not against Gods Law And this Precept of the Apostle being of that Divine Right by which Christianity subsisteth cannot be voided by any Secular Power by which the Church subsisteth not in point of Right but onely is maintained in point of fact For the obligation which they have to the Church and the Unity thereof and the Order by which that Unity is preserved and the Government in which that Order consisteth being more ancient then the maintenance of Christianity by the State cannot be taken away by any obligation or interesse thereupon arising And therefore as the first Christians that were under Christian Powers in the time of Constantine were bound to adhere to the Pastors which they had by the Law of the Church for which reason neither did Constantine Constantius or Valens ever endevour to intrude those Bishops which they were seduced to think necessary for the quiet of some Churches being indeed dangerous to Christianity by their own Power but by a pretended legall Act of the Church after Constantine took Christianity into the protection of the Empire upon the same terms as afore So are all Christians to the worlds end obliged to adhere to the Pastors which they shall have by the Law of the Church not contrary to Gods Law against the command of any Secular Power to obey others And to demand that Ecclesiasticall Power not contrary to Gods Law be dissolved by Secular to which the persons endowed therewith are Subjects is to demand that there remain no Christians in England that can be content to suffer for their Christianity by obeying Gods Law before mans especially when they can obey both acting by Gods and suffering by mans But though I insist upon this right of the Church yet it is not my purpose to balk the fruit of the Divine Right of Bishops upon such terms as it hath been asserted That is to say as that which no man may lawfully destroy though not as that which being destroied voideth the being of a Church if it can be done without Schism because not commanded particular Christians as the substance of Christianity but the Society of the Church for the maintenance and support of it For if no Secular Power be able to give that Power to the Presbyteries which must be taken from the Bishops supposing that the superiority of Bishops stands neither by nor against the Law of God but onely by the Law of the Church according to Gods How much more when it is demonstrated that it subsisteth by the Act of the
Apostles shall it be without the compasse of any Secular Power to dissolve it And therefore the consequence hereof in the present state of Christianity among us is further to be deduced because many men may be perswaded of their obligation to the Church upon supposition of the Divine Right of Bishops who perhaps perceive not the former reason of their obligation to them here asserted as to the Ordinary Pastors of the Church To proceed then out of the premises to frame a judgement of the state and condition of Christianity in England at the present and from that judgement to conclude what they that will preserve the conscience of good Christians are to doe or to avoid in maintaining the Society and Communion of the Church Put the case that an Ecclesiasticall Power be claimed and used upon some perswasions contrary to the substance of true Christianity and pretending thereby to govern those that adhere to the same perswasion in the Communion of those Ordinances which God requireth to be served with by his Church according to the same perswasion I suppose no man will deny this to be the crime of Heresie containing not onely a perswasion contrary to the foundation of Faith but also an Ecclesiasticall Power founded upon it and thereby a separation from the Communion of the Church which acknowledgeth not the same Put the case again that an Ecclesiasticall Power is claimed and used not upon a perswasion contrary to any thing immediately necessary to the salvation of all Christians as the foundation of Faith and all that belongeth to it is but upon a perswasion contrary to something necessary to the Society of the whole Church as commanded by our Lord Christ or his Apostles to be regulated thereby and this with a pretense to govern those that adhere to the same perswasion in the Communion of all Ecclesiasticall Ordinances according to it this I cannot see how it can be denied to be the crime of Schism And this God be blessed that I cannot say it is done in England but in consequence to the premises I must say that this is it which hath been and is endevoured to be done in it and therefore to be avoided by all that will not communicate in an act of Schism I doe not deny that Presbyters have an interesse in the Power of the Keys and by consequence in all parts of Ecclesiasticall Power being all the productions thereof But I have shewed that their Interesse is in dependence upon their respective Bishops without whom by the Ordinance of the Apostles and the practice of all Churches that are not parties in this cause nothing is to be done When as therefore Presbyters dividing among themselves the eminent Power of their Bishops presume to manage it without acknowledgement of them out of an opinion that the eminence of their Power is contrary to the Ordinance of our Lord and his Apostles or that not being contrary to the same it is lawfull for Presbyters to take it out of the hands either of Bishops or of simple Presbyters had they been so possessed of it When as they joyn with themselves some of the People in the quality of Lay Elders or what ever they will have them called and of these constitute Consistories for all severall Congregations endowed with the Power of the Keys over the same though in dependence upon greater Assemblies out of the opinion that this is the Ordinance of our Lord his Apostles and this not to manage the Interesse of the People that nothing passe contrary to the Laws given the Church by God which are their inheritance as well as the Clergies but in a number double to that of the Presbyters in all Consistories and in a right equall to them man for man so that it may truly be said that the whole Power of Clergy and People is vested in these Lay Elders that one quality consenting being able to conclude the whole When as the determination who shall or shall not be admitted to Communion returneth at last to a number of Secular persons making them thereby Judges of the Laws of Christianity and enabling them thereby to give and take away the Ecclesiasticall being of any member of the Church in those cases to which that power extendeth and investing a Civile Court with the Power of the Keys in the same All these points being members of the Ordinance for the establishment of the Presbyteries I say then that by that Ordinance an Ecclesiasticall Power is erected upon so many perswasions of things concerning the publick Order of the Society of the Church contrary to the Laws given the Church by our Lord and his Apostles by a Secular Power interessed onely in point of Fact in Church matters without any ground of Right to do it and that therefore the endevouring to establish these Presbyteries is an act of Schism which particular Christians though they never by any expresse act of their own tied themselves to be subject to Bishops are neverthelesse bound not to communicate in because they are bound upon their salvation to maintain the Unity of the Church and the Unity of the Church established upon these Laws whereof the Succession of Bishops is one As for the design of the Congregations it is easily perceived to come to this effect That to the intent that Christian people may be tied to no Laws but such as the Spirit of God which is in them convinces them to be established upon the Church by the Scripture and that thereupon the ordering of all matters concerning the Society of the Church may proceed upon conviction of every mans judgement Therefore every Congregation of Christians assembling to the Service of God to be absolute and independent on any other part or the whole Church the Power being vested in the members of the said Congregation under the Authority of the Pastor and Elders as aforesaid And that therefore every Congregation constituting it self a Church constitutes by consequence and destitutes Pastors Elders and Members So that by this design an Ecclesiasticall Power being erected upon so many perswasions contrary to the Laws given the Church by our Lord and his Apostles the act of Schism is more visible Though for the claim and Title by which this Ecclesiasticall Power is erected in both ways that of the Congregations is more sutable to Christianity because that of the Presbyteries more forcible both equally destructive to the right of the Church For that a Parliament by which Power the Assembly of Divines was called not disputing now the Power of a Parliament in England but supposing it to be as great for the purpose as any Christian State can exercise should erect an Ecclesiasticall Power by taking it from those that have it and giving it to those that have it not is without the Sphere of any Power which stands not by the Constitution of the Church For if the Church subsisted before any Secular Power was Christian by a Power vested by our Lord in
Preach continually so as to edifie the Church by their Preaching as it was for Apostles Apostolicall persons and Prophets is not for a reasonable man to imagine And those that stand so much upon Preaching twice every Lords Day would finde themselves at a marvellous exigent if they should prove either the necessity of it in point of Right by the Scriptures or the utility of it in point of Fact by the abilities of the men whom themselves set about it As for Prayer I yeeld that it is a Precept of God that the Prayers of Christian Congregations be presented to God by the Presbyters But what Prayers none but those which the Eucharist was celebrated with of which I spoke afore All the world will never shew any title in the Scriptures or the originall practice of the Church to prove that the Apostles ordained these prayers before or after the Sermons of Presbyters which are now made the greatest part of the exercise of Christianity unlesse it be because the Sermon went before the Eucharist as Acts XX. 7. 1 Cor. XIV 16. The Prayers which the Presbyters offer to God in behalf of the Church being by the institution of the Apostles onely those which the Eucharist is celebrated with I acknowledge that under the Apostles the Prayers of the Church were not prescribed but conceived by those that were emploied in that office by the Church But in consideration of the Propheticall Revelations and immediate inspirations which the persons emploied about that Office were then graced with to shew the truth of Christianity and the presence of God in the Church And therefore since those graces ceased I have shewed in the Apostolicall Form of Divine Service p. 348. that those Prayers of the Church which went not with the Eucharist were ministred by Deacons because it was found necessary that both the one and the other should be done in a prescript form to avoid the scandals of Christianity that we see come by referring it to all persons that are trusted to officiate publick service And I am astonished that any Christian should imagine that God should be pleased with the conceptions of the minde or expressions of the tongue setting aside the affection of the heart that any man prays with But now by the pretense on foot which makes the exercise of Christianity to consist in a Sermon and a Prayer conceived before or after it not onely the celebration of the Eucharist which the Apostles ordained to be as frequent as the Prayers of the Presbyters and which the Church of England recommends on all Sundaies and Festivals is turned out of doors to three or four times a year But also all the publick Service of God by Prayer Reading the Scriptures and the Praises of God forbidden when the Preachers mouth opens not And by referring the form of Prayer and matter of Doctrine to each mans discretion the exercise of Religion is turned into a Lecture of State infused into the conscience of the hearers by desiring of God the interesse of that faction for which a man Preaches And by this means they that doe challenge to themselves the title of Apostles when they style themselves Ministers of Christ and of the Gospel are now discovered by their adversaries of the Congregations to be Ministers of that Power which set them up as indeed they must needs be when a double number of Votes in their Presbyteries is able to cast them out of the Church if they prove not faithfull Ministers The ruine of Christianity is yet greater in going about to Reform Religion by the Sword and taking up Arms upon the Title of Christianity whether it be pretended or not For they that say that the Christians of Tertullians time would have defended themselves by force against the persecutions of the Romane Emperors if they had been able must needs say that Christians may and ought to defend themselves upon the Title of their Christianity As both Buchanane and Bellarmine by consequence must doe when they say that the reason why S. Paul commands Christians to be subject to the Secular Powers of his time was because they were not able to resist But I doe remember to have read in Burroughs his Lectures on Hoses which I speak to doe him right that the Title of this War is not grounded on Religion as Religion but as professed by this Kingdome Which I conceive cannot be said by those that advance the Covenant or allow two clauses of it The first when it promiseth to maintain the Kings person and estate in maintenance of Religion For if the maintenance of the State be limited within the condition of Religion then it is professed by consequence that the Soveraign Power of the State is not to be maintained when Religion is not maintained by it which if it did maintain Religion were to be maintained Therefore Religion is the ground upon which those that enter into the Covenant undertake to maintain one another without any exception in the maintenance of the same Therefore that War is made upon the Title of Religion which maintains not the State but in the maintenance of it The second when it faith that this is done that those which grone under the yoke of Antichrist may be moved to do the like Which belonging to the Subjects of Popish Princes professeth Religion to be the Title of those Arms which all of like Religion may use what ever the State be under which they live Now would I fain know of any friend of the Covenant What is the difference between it and the Holy League of France under Henry the third as to this point and in this regard There is indeed difference enough between the subjects in which the two Leagues suppose Religion to consist and there is as much in the Rule of the same which both suppose But as to the right which Religion introduceth of maintaining it self by force both Covenants agree in supposing it And thereby found temporall right upon the Grace of Christianity contrary to that which I presuppose from the beginning seeing whatsoever is purchased by such Arms is the production of that Title under which they are born True it is that Religion is not the onely Title of that League or this Covenant both of them pretending as well abuse in Government But it is to be considered on the other side that these two Titles are not subordinate but concurrent That is that this Right of maintaining Religion by force of Arms riseth from the truth of Religion in it self presupposed and not by the establishment of Religion by the Laws of any State for the Religion of the same Because not by that Power by which these Laws were made And therefore by consequence makes those that take Arms and joyn in Covenant supreme Judges of all that is questioned in Religion Which being of much more consideration to all Christians then the good estate of any Commonwealth though both Titles concurre in this War yet it
the Church originally always every where hath professed and used From them let them seek the communion of the Church not onely in the exercise of such Christian Ordinances as men cast upon desert coasts and utterly destitute of Ecclesiasticall Society for the present for so our distractions have made us can participate in but also in such acts of the Power of the Keys as passe not the inward court of the conscience Neither let them ever think themselves necessitated to communicate with Schisme while the Law which is the source of all Laws and the persons which are the seed of all publick persons of the Church continue And let them know further that in adhering to the Society of a Church never so much destroied by force no Secular Power whether lawfull or unlawfull shall ever have more rightfull title to persecute them then the Romane Emperours had to persecute the Apostles and Primitive Christians part of their profession being not to defend themselves by force grounded upon the title of Christianity but to suffer with patience what force shall inflict for it Which doing as the purchase is not of this world so let them not doubt to finde the effect of the promises which are to come A REVIEW CHAP. I. SInce the writing of this Discourse I have understood by relation and by some Pamphlets that there is one opinion on foot among the many of this time that there is no such thing as a Society of the Church by the Ordinance of our Lord and the institution of his Apostles That wheresoever we reade of the Church in the Scriptures there we are to understand no more but onely a number of men that are Christians who may or ought to assemble together for the service of God as they find opportunity and means But that there should be thought to be any condition of communicating in the Service of God which should make all Christians a Society called the Church as excluding those that are not qualified with it this they think to be an Imposture that hath made way for Antichrist And though this opinion be so groundlesse that very few Readers will expect any opposition to be made yet because my intent was by this Discourse to improve the Reasons heretofore advanced and to try the effect and consequence of them in destroying the grounds of the divisions framed among us And because if that which I propound be the truth it will with a little husbanding be effectuall to convince all manner of errors it will be requisite here to give notice that all the reasons which this first Chapter produceth to prove the Power of the Keys and the punishment of Excommunication the effect thereof to belong to the Church are effectuall to prove the Society of the Church which this Power constitutes and therefore the effect thereof evidenceth And truly though there is an infinite distance between the productions and consequences of this opinion and that of Erastus in as much as this manifestly tendeth to challenge to all Christians freedome of doing what they please in the exercise of their Christianity without any account to the State under which they live that of Erastus challenging to the State all Power to govern all Christians in their Christianity yet if we consider the ground on which both stand they will appear to be as the Rivers that rise out of Apenninus which empty themselves some into the Sea of Tuscany others into the Gulf of Venice For I suppose every mans common reason will furnish him so much of the metaphysicks as to make it appear that every thing which hath a beeing is by that beeing distinct from other things So that if there be no difference between the Society of the Church and that of the State when it professes Christianity but that both make one Community Corporation or Commonwealth as that of the ancient people of God under the Law then is there no Society of a Church when the State is Christian seeing it is agreed upon on all hands that there is one of the State and this opinion inforces that there is no more but one True it is that there are two things to say either that before Constantine the Power of Excommunication stood onely by Humane right that is by custome of the Church or that by the Ordinance of our Lord and his Apostles it was to stand onely before Christianity were received by Kingdoms and Commonwealths but afterwards the Power of governing the Church hitherto in the Body of the Church to be dissolved into the Secular Power of the State But whether this or that in all cases he that taketh away the Power of the Keys in opening and that of Excommunication in shutting up the Church must needs appear to take away the Society and Communion of a Church either because it never was or because it ceaseth when the State becomes Christian This consideration improves very much the reasons of this Chapter against Erastus making his opinion liable to all those Scriptures which acknowledge a Society of the Church and the sense of all Christians which suppose the same And deserveth here to be represented because it may be observed that the proceeding of the Discourse did not give leave to presse it to this effect For the intent of it being to limit the concurrence of Secular and Ecclesiasticall Power in Church matters it was necessary to declare in the first place upon what ground God hath instituted the Society of the Church by Revelation from above having before constituted civile Societies of the same persons whereof the Church consisteth by the Law of Nature and Nations and the operation of his ordinary Providence Especially seeing that Christianity addresseth it self to all Nations and therefore intendeth to constitute one Church of all civile Societies which imbrace the same For seeing it is manifest that Religion hath always been a very generall Title of many Wars and commotions against the Publick peace and that therefore all States must needs be jealous of that Religion which asks no leave of the State to beleeve what it beleeves but professes an obligation of beleeving though never so contrary to the Laws of the State it appears to have been requisite that there should be in Christianity some condition that might clear it from this jealousie especially because one Society of the Church consisting of the persons which constitute many States must needs be concluded in point of conscience by a Power of the Church not derived from that of the State and so possibly the Subjects of a State be concluded in conscience by strangers to that State as they are members of the Church This is the difficulty which was to be removed in the beginning of this Discourse that it might appear no ways prejudiciall to civile Societies that God should institute one Society of the Church to consist of all persons of severall States that professe Christianity And the removing of this difficulty consists in the
Clergy by the Jurisdiction of the Church For in regard that as it hath been said on divers occasions in this Discourse the Clergy is promoted upon supposition of some degree of proficience in Christianity over and above that upon supposition whereof men are admitted to be only Christians it followeth not that those who by their conversation render themselves unworthy of that degree which they hold in the Clergy doe by the same means render themselves unworthy of the Communion of the Church Therefore the punishment of a Clergy man may be competent by onely voiding his degree when another Christian cannot be competently punished but by putting him from the Church Whereby it appears that the Power of Ordaining as well as censuring persons Ordained is grounded upon the Power of the Keys as giving or taking away not the communion of the Church but a degree and quality above it which supposeth it Again upon the constitution of the Society of the Church follows the Power of making Canons Constitutions and Ordinances obliging the respective body thereof correspondent to the Legislative Power of Kingdomes and Common-wealths wherein the justice of them most appears though the strength of them is more seen in the Power of the Sword which gives all Laws force And so it is no more inconvenience to all these Canons the Laws of the Church then it is to call the Power of Excommunication the spirituall Sword of the Church Neither is it any more for the Church to have this Power then that which States ordinarily allow the meanest Corporations which they Privilege to wit to give Laws to their own Bodies for the maintenance and execution of the Laws originally given them by those who are enabled to institute them In fine in correspondence to the Exchequer of a State is the Title that God hath given his Church to the Oblations of the Faithfull their First-fruits and Tithes The right whereof he hath endowed the Church with leaving the seizure to the voluntary tender of those whō he calleth to be voluntary Christians And thus and by this correspondence with a State the parts of Ecclesiasticall Power are more clearly and more intelligibly distinguished in my opinion then by the ordinary terms of Jurisdiction and Order For first these terms being introduced by the Canonists and School Doctors seem to presuppose a coactive Jurisdiction in the Church upon the constitution and originall Title of the Church such as the Church of Rome challenges and the Decretall Epistles of the Popes presuppose whereby they challenge to themselves that Power by Divine Right which by the sufferance of Princes and States they did exercise intangling the Schools of Divines with as inextricable difficulties to make it good as Christian States with commotions to shake off the consequences thereof meerly for neglect of the principle here presupposed that Christianity importeth no right of this world and therefore that the coactive Power of the State remains where it was before it Secondly it seemeth that the Power of Order and Jurisdiction are not contradistinct but subordinate the Power of Order being the production and consequence of the Power of Jurisdiction if it be rightly understood For by the same reason which proveth here p. 199 that the power of consecrating the Eucharist belongeth to Presbyters upon the Power of the Keys and that all Benedictions with Imposition of Hands whether in Confirmation Ordination Penance Mariage or whatsoever else are marks of that Power which alloweth those acts which are blessed to be done in the Church as you have it here p. 23. by the same reason it follows that the ministery of all Ordinances of God deposited with the Church is a mark of that superiority which those that minister the same have in the Church And therefore if the Power of Order be in respect of Christs own Body as ordinarily they describe it it proceeds from the Power over his mysticall Body which is that of Jurisdiction as they make it Or if as others will have it the Power of Order consists in the ministery of such divine Ordinances as are the means to procure and increase Gods grace in the persons to whom they are ministerd the same reason takes place Because they are not to be ministred but by them whom the Church trusteth to do it to that true intent which it teacheth Wherefore it seemeth that the term of Jurisdiction ought to expresse the common source of all Ecclesiasticall Power which it doth not because that as Jurisdictiis but a part of Soveraignty in a State so the Power from which the metaphoricall jurisdiction of the Church floweth which I conceive cannot be better expressed then by calling it the Power of the Keys as the Gospel hath done produceth other branches of Ecclesiasticall Power correspondent to other parts of Soveraignty in a State as hereby you have seen CHAP. II. HAving thus determined whereupon the Power of the Keys is founded and wherein it consisteth it remained to proceed and declare what persons it is trusted with For seeing the persons of whom Christian States consist are the same of whom the Churches or parts of the whole Church that are contained in those States consist if there be no provision of Gods Law tying the Right of managing this Power and the productions and branches thereof to some qualities consequent to the constitution of the Church it will necessarily fall as an escheat to the State and we shall be tied to grant it Power to conferre those qualities by which it is managed and all this will be truly said to no purpose Here in the first place I must insist upon a point the truth whereof the Presbyteries and Congregations have equally divided between them and left it entire to the Church For those of the Congregations finding that the design of the Presbyteries had ordered a Presbytery for the government of every Congregation that assembles together for the common service of God had reason to inferre that all those Presbyteries ought to be endowed with the Power of the Keys as to their own Bodies To which assuming another demand that the chief Power in every Congregation was that of the People it followeth that all Congregations are independent and absolute not to be concluded by any Church or Synod representative of Churches above themselves On the other side the Presbyterians finding that no Unity can be preserved without dependence and desiring to preserve Unity among themselves though not with the Church have designed the Power of the Keys as to the act of Excommunication to rest in Representatives of the Presbyteries of Congregations which neverthelesse they call by the same name of Presbyteries or Classes the same being subject to Synods of Presbyteries and those to Nationall Assemblies Whereas there is never any mention in all the Scriptures of any Presbytery or Company College or Bench of Presbyters as likewise there is no mention of any Church but in a City No mention of more Churches then
their Right For in this quality doe those Elders of the People of which Justellus writeth act in Ecclesiasticall matters as you may see by that which I have said in the Apostolicall Form of Divine Service p. 96. and in all other the particulars which he allegeth And if this be it which the Presbyterians demand in behalf of their Lay Elders let them first accord themselves with those of the Congregations concerning the due Interesse of the People in Church matters and my opinion shall be that the Church may safely joyn issue with them not to yeeld a double number of Votes to Lay Elders in the proceeding of all Church matters as the Ordinance for establishing the Presbyteries appoints which is to make the Clergy truly Ministers not of God but of the People but to grant them a right of Intercession in behalf of the People when as the proceeding may be argued to be contrary to Gods Law grounded upon the practice recorded in the Scriptures and continued under the Primitive Church by which the people were satisfied even of the proceedings of the Apostles themselves in Church matters For by this Right and Interesse the Acts of the Church shall not be done by any Vote of the People but the Rule of Christianity and the Constitution of the Church according to Gods Law shall be preserved which are the inheritance of Christian people The second is concerning the different interesse of Clergy and People in judging the causes of Christians before any State professed Christianity supposing that which hath been proved in the first Chapter that our Lord and his Apostles ordain that they goe not forth of the Church to be judged in Heathen Courts upon pain of Excommunication to them that carry them forth For S. Paul seems to appoint that the least esteemed of the Church be constituted Judges in those causes 1 Cor. VI. 4. and therefore not Bishops nor Presbyters nor Deacons which must needs be of most esteem in the Society of the Church but the simplest of the people Which though it must needs be said by way of concession or supposition that is that they should rather appoint such men then carry their Causes to Secular Courts otherwise it were too grosse an inconvenience to imagine that the Apostle commandeth them to appoint the simplest to be their Judges yet seeing the truth of his words requires that the supposition be possible so that it might in some case come to effect it seems that his injunction comes to this that in case the chief of the Church the Clergy were so imploied that they could not attend to judge their controversies within themselves they should make Judges out of the People Which seemeth not sutable to the rest of the Interesse of the Clergy hitherto challenged This difficulty is to be answered by distinguishing as the Romane Laws distinguish between Jurisdiction and Judging though in far lesse matters For Jurisdiction is sometimes described in the Romane Laws to be the Power of appointing a Judge because it was never intended that the Magistrate which was endowed with Jurisdiction should judge all in person but should give execution and force to the sentences of such Judges as himself should appoint So that the advise of the Apostle supposeth indeed that some of the People might be appointed to judge the Causes of Christians within the Church but leaves the Jurisdiction in those hands by whom they should be appointed Judges Which though it be attributed to the Church indistinctly by the Apostle yet seeing by our Lords appointment the sentence was to be executed by Excommunication therefore of necessity the appointing of Judges must proceed upon the same difference of Interesses as it hath been shewed that Excommunication doth And though Saint Paul suppose that there might be cause to have recourse to Lay-men for the sentencing of differences in the Church as indeed the life of S. Peter in the Pontificall Book relateth that he did Ordain or appoint certain persons to attend upon this businesse that himself might be free for more spirituall imploiment which seemeth to be meant of Lay-men constituted Judges yet by the Apostolicall Constitutions we finde that it was usually done by the Clergy II. 47. And Polycarpus in his Epistle to the Philippians exhorting the Presbyters not to be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 rigid in judgement must needs be thought to have respect to this Office And besides many more instances that might be produced of good antiquity in the Church it is manifest that this is the beginning of Bishops Audiences CHAP. IV. THat which is said p. 166. that Christian States have as good right to dispose of matters of Christianity as any State that is not Christian hath to dispose of matters of that Religion which it professeth proceedeth upon that ground of Interesse in matters of Religion which is common to all States to wit that the disposing of matters of Religion is a part of that Right wherein Soveraignty consists in as much as it concerneth all Civile Societies to provide that under pretense of Religion nothing prejudiciall to the publick peace thereof may be done And truly those Religions that come not from God may very well contain things prejudiciall to Civile Society in as much as those unclean Spirits which are the authors of counterfeit Religions doe also take delight in confounding the good order of humane affairs Notwithstanding in regard the obligation which we have to civile Society is more felt and better understood then that which we have to the Service of God therefore those that are seduced from true Religion are neverthelesse by the light of Nature enabled to maintain civile Society against any thing which under pretense of Religion may prove prejudiciall to the same This is then the common ground of the interesse of all States in matters of Religion which Christianity both particularly and expresly establisheth Particularly in as much as they that assure themselves to have received their Religion from the true God must needs rest assured that he who is the author of civile Society doth not require to be worshipped with any judgement or disposition of minde prejudiciall to his own ordinance Which reason because it taketh place also in Judaisme I have therefore as I found occasion endevoured to declare how that containeth nothing prejudiciall to the Law of Nations And expresly in as much as the Gospel addresseth it self to all Nations with this provision that nothing be innovated in the civile State of any upon pretense thereof but that all out of conscience to God submit to maintain that estate wherein they come to be Christians so far as it is not subject to change by some course of humane right For when S. Paul 1 Cor. VII 22 commands all men to serve God in that condition of circumcision or uncircumcision single life or wedlock bondage or freedome wherein they are called to be Christians his meaning is not to say that a slave may not
Provinces were constituted by in the Babylonian and after it in the Persian Empire then by any right belonging to him among his own people such as the posterity of Zorebabel had to be Governours of the Jews that remained in Babylonia when they were privileged to live according to their own Laws by their Soveraign But whether this or that as to the point here in hand both are to the same purpose I must not passe over this place without taking into consideration the reasons upon which and the consequences to which Erastus his opinion seems to be advanced in the late sharp work de Cive where it is determined that the interpretation of the Scriptures for which I may as well say the Power of Giving Laws to the Church seeing the greatest difficulty lies in determining controversies of Faith the constitution of Pastors the Power of binding and loosing belongs to every Christian State to be exercised by the ministery of Pastors of the Church For if this may take place then is all that hath been said to no purpose And truly I must imbrace and applaud one position upon which all this proceeds that the Church to which any Right or Power of acting according to any right is attributed in the Scriptures must needs be a Society that may be assembled and therefore stands obliged to assemble But that hereupon alone it should be inferred and taken for granted that therefore a Christian State and a Christian Church are both the same thing distinguished by two severall causes and considerations when both consist of the same persons I have all the reason in the World to stand astonished For it is not the persons which are supposed here to be the same that any question can be made of neither can the Church and the State be said to be the same thing because they are all the same For we speak not here of the nature of the persons their souls or bodies or any thing that either of both is endowed with but we speak here of the quality of a State or a Church affecting all those persons together upon some voluntary act of God or of themselves or both without making any change in the nature of any person so qualified onely supposing the person whose act it is able to doe the act upon which they are qualified to be a State or a Church and by doing it to oblige or privilege the persons on whom it passes Which kinde of things are oftentimes by Philosophers Divines and Lawyers called to very good purpose Morall things Such are all manner of rights in all manner of Societies whatsoever being nothing else but abilities of doing something which are not in other men not endowed with the same So likewise seeing that all the objects of any faculty naturall or morall any habit of virtue or vice or that which is neither but consists in skill or knowledge or any perfection of nature for which a man is neither good nor bad may be denominated and qualified by the faculties or habits that are exercised upon them by the same reason as colour is said to be seen or as that is said to be right and just which is done according to justice therefore by the same common reason if there be such a thing as Holinesse in the souls of men which disposes them to reverence God by tendring him that service which may expresse it then are the Means and the Circumstances the Times the Places and the Persons by which this reverence is publickly tendred to God capable to be denominated Holy by a morall quality derived from that Holinesse which dwels in the souls of Christians and not onely capably but actually so qualified in point of right supposing that which hath been proved p. 212 that the practice of Gods people evidenced by the Scriptures proves the reverence of the same to be effectuall and necessary for the maintenance of that reverence of God in those acts of his service wherein the Holinesse of Christians consisteth This though it belong not to my present purpose I have set down upon this occasion out of a desire further to declare the nature of that Holinesse for which Times Places and Persons as also all other means which God is served by are said to be Holy and for what reason I call it p. 217. sometimes Morall sometimes Ecclesiasticall Holinesse sometimes also Relative as others many times do call it For seeing it is grounded upon the relation which is between all faculties morall or naturall between all habits of virtue and vice or whatever else and the objects which they are exercised about it is manifest how properly it is called Relative Again seeing it hath been declared that those qualifications and denominations which arise upon some act of God or man having power to oblige either others or themselves are therefore called Morall in opposition to such as make a change in the nature of mens souls and bodies when they become endowed therewith because these Morall qualities accrue without any change in the nature of them to whom they accrue therefore that Holinesse which belongs to things uncapable of that Holinesse which dwels in the souls of Christians is properly called morall Holinesse as grounded upon the Will of God appearing to have appointed the reverence of them to maintain that reverence of him wherein Holinesse consisteth And as for this reason in generall it is called morall Holinesse so it is also called Ecclesiasticall for the same reason expressed in particular as depending upon that Will of God by which Christianity and the Church and the service of God therein subsisteth To return then to my purpose which gave me occasion to declare this here seeing that when the question is made whether the Church and the State consisting of the same persons be the same thing or not there can be no question understood of the nature that is the souls and bodies of the persons which are supposed to be the same but of the Morall beeing of a State whether the same give it the quality of a Church or not 3. And seeing the beeing of such things depends upon the act by which they are constituted we have no more to enquire but this whether the same Act constitute a Church which constitutes a State And then a very little enquiry will serve to shew that though all Churches and all States subsist by the Act both of God and man yet they are severall Acts by which they are States and by which they are Churches So severall that the Church subsists by immediate revelation from God by our Lord and his Apostles which no State doth and whatsoever it is that makes any man a member of any State it is not that which makes him a Christian and so a member of the Church but something else And therefore there is a fault in the reason of the inference propounded which concludes thus that a Church must be that which hath Power to assemble the
persons whereof it consists now the State is it which hath Power to doe that For as it cannot be denied that all States must needs have Power to assemble themselves so it must not be granted that the Church hath not Power to doe the same because it hath been proved here from the beginning that the Church hath Power of assembling not from any State but immediately and originally from God whether for the service of God or for determining whatsoever shall become determinable for the maintenance of Unity among all those that are to communicate in the service of God and the Offices of the same Truly so long as by Circumcision men became both members of a State and of the Communion of Gods service the Church and the State were all one Society as hath often been observed here for the difference between the Law and the Gospel both subsisting by the same Act of God calling them to be his people and to inherit the Land of Promise both upon condition of keeping his Law and by the same act of the people imbracing the same Which holds not in Christianity addressing it self to all Nations and therefore preserving States in the condition which it findes and yet founding a Society of the Church upon the privilege and Charter of assembling for the service of God and the Power which is requisite to preserves the Unity of all that assemble in the condition upon which they communicate in the service of God Which Society as it was visibly distinct from all States for all the time between our Lord and Constantine so is it acknowledged by this author to have subsisted even under the Apostles when as he alleges their Writings to prove those rights which they attribute to the Church to belong to those States which are Christian Which for my part I very much marvell how he could think fit to doe knowing that such acts as the Apostles attribute to the Church are so far from being the acts of the State under which the Church then was that they were prohibited by it so often as the assemblies of Christians were forbidden as you have seen that many times they were By that which hath been said it may appear what reason Ecclesiasticall Writers had to make a difference between the names of the Synagogue and the Church appropriating the former to the Jews and this to the Christians which I for my part so far as custome will give leave desire to observe though for the originall signification I see the name of Ecclesia was at the first most properly attributed to the whole body of Gods people assembled together in the Wildernesse as for example at the giving of the Law For in all the divers significations in which it is used speaking of Christianity there is one and the same consideration of assembling together to be seen though upon severall reasons and to severall purposes from the Synagogue The whole company of those that shall meet and assemble together in the world to come is called sometimes the Church and so is the whole company of the Visible Church upon earth Because though they cannot meet bodily to communicate in the service of God yet they ought to meet with that judgement and disposition of minde that they may both communicate bodily in this world when occasion is and actually meet altogether in the world to come So is the company of Christians contained in either barely one City or the Head City of a Province or Nation called the Church of that City Province or Nation because they so meet severally that any of them may assemble with any because under the same conditions But when one Congregation is called a Church as somtimes it is in the Scriptures it is for the same manner of assembling as the whole people of Israel was assembled in the Wildernesse These things generally premised it will not be difficult to defeat the productions of this assumption in the particulars specified And first according to that which is here determined p. 192. I admit that the Power of interpreting the Scriptures is nothing else but the Power of determining controversies of Faith Though it is not as by consequence to be admitted that those interpretations which come from this Power are as much the Word of God as that which is interpreted by the same or infallible or that we are bound to stand to them as much as to the Scriptures themselves For the Word of God if we will understand it properly is that onely and all that which God giveth in Commission to be declared and enjoyned his people and therefore this author very skilfully observeth that the Word of God in the New Testament is as much as the Gospel which God gave in charge to our Lord Christ and he to his Apostles to be published to the world with a charge from God to imbrace it For so also the Law was the Word of God to Moses and all the Revelations granted the Patriarchs and Prophets were the Word of God to them because by them God declared how he would conduct his People Whereas after the Prophers of the Old Testament though we finde that there were Prophets that spoke by inspiration not onely by Josephus speaking of those times of Gods people whereof there is no mention in the Scriptures but also by that which is said in the New Testament of Simeon and Anna Zachary and the Blessed Virgin and of the Prophets of Churches yet we do not finde it said that the Word of the Lord came to any of them because they received nothing in charge from God to his People Wherefore that which the Church hath received from those persons that spoke not onely by inspiration and revelation but also by Commission from God the evidence of which Commission containeth all the motives to Christianity must not be compared with any thing which it may receive in charge any other way though it be such as may produce an obligation to receive and observe it of a nature answerable to the ground and intent of it which I have declared in the place afore quoted Neither is it to be said that God faileth his Church in any thing due to it upon those promises whereby it subsisteth if he have not provided it of such a Power to be received as infallible unlesse we will say that God hath tied himself to preserve it free from the temptation and triall of Heresies and Schisms which he hath sufficiently declared that he never intended to doe Now that having determined an infallible Power to be requisite for the determining of matters of faith by interpretation of the Scriptures this author in consequence to his assumptions which I have spoke of should challenge it to belong to all Christian States I cannot choose but marvell Seeing that as the Scriptures come by revelation and inspiration from God so whatsoever shall pretend to like authority must needs proceed from the same Which if the Church that is
wherein he is thought so plainly to determine that Clergy men are uncapable of imploiment in Secular affairs whereof here p. 268. be it but to shew how mens trust is abused when they examine not such allegations I grant these are his words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that to joyn Civile skill with the Priesthood is to spin two wools together that will not make one thred I grant he saith that the Aegyptians and Hebrews had once Priests for their Kings But that God parted them because his work was done with humane weaknesse But shall I count that to be against Gods Law in Synesius his opinion which he counts those Bishops happy that could goe through with which he himself declares that he was not desirous to lay aside from his own care which he desires a coadjutor to be joyned with him to assist him in The case was this It was a part of the Bishops Office as still it ought to be to intercede with the civile Powers for favour to all charitable causes For among the ancient People of God it was the Prophets Office who may well be called the Preachers of Christianity during that time as you see 2 Kings IV. 12. and therefore of duty belongs to the chief Doctors of it now In the Africane Canons it is divers times provided that it belong to the Bishops charge Synesius finding himselfe foiled in the execution hereof by Andronicus makes a proposition to his Church that he may have one to assist him in it that he might not be diverted from his Priestly Office for it intending notwithstanding to attend it himself as he should find opportunity so to doe Is this the proposition of one that thought it against Gods Law for a Bishop or Clergy man to doe it For certainly the coadjutor which he desires must be understood to be a Clergy man because it is the Interesse of the Church in which he is to act Whereupon the Church proceeds there to Excommunication because wronged in it by Andronicus So likewise S. Augustine may complain of the multitude of businesse which diverted him from more spirituall imploiment to end the sutes of Christians which then resorted to the Bishop But did S. Augustine think it against Gods Law that he should be exercised in it and yet continue in that exercise That is the point here questioned whether against Gods Law or according to it as for the point of expedience I dispute it not here though if Synesius be against that a man may very well say to his reasons that for any man to act in Secular matters towards an Interesse of power or profit is a thing inconsistent with the Priesthood which is to act towards the Interesse of Christianity And therefore God hath parted all such imploiment from the Government of his Church But that the Rulers of Christianity should act in the Interesse of Christianity and to the advantage thereof in Secular especially in publick affairs is that which all parties now declare to be well done when it is done by Law by doing it themselves without Law The distance between Civile and Military imploiment among the Romanes whereof p. 271. appears by the provision introduced by the Emperours in favour of Soldiers that their last Wils should be good though made without the Solemnities of Law Which the Laws themselves ff de Testam Milit. l. 1. Instit ead VI. declare was provided in regard to the simplenesse or innocence of Soldiers that is because of the ignorance in the Laws proceeding from that strict attendance upon their Colours to which Soldiers stood obliged all the time of their service which was with most of them the greatest part of their lives It is not my purpose to say that the Clergy are not to be so constant to the service of the Church as Soldiers to their Colours But that the service of the Church when the State is Christian requires not that distance from Civile businesse as the service of the Wars among the Romanes If the service of the Church consisted onely in Preaching it would be much otherwise But if the service of the Church consist in the maintenance and advancement of Christianity then neither can the Clergy understand wherein consists the Interesse of Christianity without understanding the affairs of the world wherein it is seen neither can they act towards the maintenance and advancement thereof without understanding it Wherefore though it appear not onely by S. Cyprian but by Can. Apost LXXX LXXXII and others that when States were not Christian the Clergy were forbidden Secular businesse yet when the State is Christian to forbid it were to forbid the means of maintaining Christianity in the dispatching of such businesse To that which is acknowledged p. 273. c. V. that no part of the Church can be concluded but by the Act of the Synod respective to it I adde further that the Act thereof cannot passe but by the greater part of it For unlesse the consent of the Whole follow the consent of the greater part in doing those Acts which must oblige the Church as in making Canons and Ordinations it cannot appear how the precept of the Apostles of obeying the present Rulers of the Church is neglected in any Schism that is effected by any part of them and by consequence there would be no such crime as that of Schisme in any such case As for example in the case of the Church of Corinth upon which the Epistle of Clemens was written and sent which he declares p. 62. when he says that it is much a shame for the profession of Christians that the ancient Church of Corinth should maintain a faction against the Presbyters for one or two persons to wit of the same rank of Presbyters as we must needs understand it When therefore both sides follow some of the Rulers of the Church how should Schism be incurred if by that precept the lesser part were not obliged to be concluded by the greater in things not determined by Gods Law So in the Ordination of Novatianus how shall it be taken for Schismaticall being done by three Bishops unlesse we grant that the lesser part is to be concluded by the greater under the pain of incurring the crime of Schism Thus that which is here propounded p. 249 250. proceedeth upon the same ground with that which followeth p. 314 315. which to confirm I adde here a memorable passage out of the said Epistle of Clemens whose Doctrine being received from the very mouthes of the Apostles must needs be accounted their own Thus then Clemens p. 54. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 so it must be read and not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Our Apostles received the Gospel from the Lord Jesus Christ Jesus Christ from God And so Christ was sent forth from God and the Apostles from Christ Thus both were orderly done by the will of God Having therefore received instructions and being assured by the resurrection of our Lord
will seek no other argument but Tertullian though it were possible to finde more For he in his Book De Velandis Virginibus proveth that the Virgins were not exempted from wearing the like because at Corinth whither S. Paul directed this charge they were not And this the property of the Greek seemeth to argue when the Apostle calleth it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 1 Cor. XI 4 7. which differs something from 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 this signifying that which is onely upon the head and so was the Vaile and therefore the woman is said 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 v. 10. the other that which is so upon the head that it comes down from the head as to the purpose before the face Neither doe I see any reason why we may not understand the Apostle when he says that the women ought to have power on their head because of the Angels to have respect unto the Legend reported in the Book of Enoch which we see was read in the Church in the Apostles time by the II Epistle of S. Peter and that of S. Jude of those Angels that are reported there to have been seduced by the beauty of women out of Gen. VI. 2. Not as if the Apostle did suppose that report to be true or did intend to give credit to the Book but that by alluding to a passage commonly known he may very well be thought to intimate that a like inconvenience to it not disputing whether true or not for the present might fall out in the Church For so when he saith that the Fathers drunk of the rock that followed them in the Wildernesse 1 Cor. X. 4. it is not I suppose his intent to affirm the truth of that which the Jews still tell and therefore without doubt did tell before S. Pauls time that the water followed the Fathers over mountains and valleys in their journey to the Land of Promise but that the Fathers drank of that water which the Jews say followed them For of the Jews themselves the learned Buxtorfe in his Preface to the Great Lexicon is of opinion that they doe not relate such fables as stories but as Parables and I conceive I have met with some things in their writings that seem to make it probable So again when S. Peter and S. Iude cite the Book of Enoch it is not their intent to credit it or tie us to beleeve that which they cite out of it but to argue thus from it that if those that reade it cannot but applaud the decorum which it keeps making the good Angels so reverent that they would not curse or blaspheme Satan what are we to think of those whom they speak of that blasphemed either Secular Powers as it is commonly understood or which perhaps is more probable the good Angels And thus by the way you see how to answer the reason for which some stick to receive these Epistles for Canonicall Scripture though it hold also in divers of S. Pauls in which are many sayings alleged out of Apocryphall Scriptures And thus the Apostles expression will be most artificially modest supposing his meaning to be onely this that women ought to be vailed because of that which we reade in the Book of Enoch to have befallen the Angels Now in those Countries where the vail was not used at the receiving of Christianity it seems this precept of S. Paul was not held to oblige As for men covering or uncovering their head in Preaching it can be nothing to S. Pauls meaning because uncovering the head in sign of reverence was a custome unknown in his time Thus you see these particulars propounded in the form of precepts notwithstanding do not oblige the Church Those that scruple the superiority of Bishops as a step to bring in Antichrist are not onely to consider that which is said here p. 291. that the Socinians have the same scruple of the substance of Christianity but also that which some of the Sects of this time give out as you see in the beginning of this Review that the making of the Church a Society or Community was the beginning of Antichrist which I have shewed was the act of our Lord and his Apostles And also that which Erastus objecteth unto the Presbyteries that by the means of Excommunication the Papacy which is the Power of Antichrist was advanced Whereby he hath requited all their aspersions upon Episcopacy and shewed all the world that the imputation of Antichrist is a saddle for all Horses that it is argumentum galeatum a reason that will serve to discredit any adversary if it may have passe-port without shewing by the Scriptures wherein the being of Antichrist consisteth And herewith my purpose was to rest contented for the present thinking this enough for this particular cause to answer the objection of Antichrist with But I have considered since that the whole credit of the ancient Church and the benefit that might redound to the resolution of all differences and difficulties from the acknowledgement thereof but in the nature of Historicall truth is utterly lost to us by the means of this prejudice In particular that by the Papers which passed between his late Majesty of happy memory and Master Alexander Hinderson lately published it appears that the whole issue of that dispute ended in it Upon these considerations therefore I have thought fit further to answer by denying the truth of this interpretation of S. Paul and the Apocalypse and to justifie this deniall by propounding so probable a meaning of those Prophesies to another effect as all those that apply them to the Papacy doe shew they could never attain to because they are fain to Prophesie themselves for the meaning of part of them which they confesse is not fulfilled And this I doe here the rather because hereby I shall declare the utmost of that argument which I have used for the Interesse of Secular Powers in Church matters grounded upon the Prophesies of the calling of the Gentiles whereby God declaring his will of bringing States to Christianity declareth by consequence that he calleth them to the same Interesse in matters of Religion which we know was exercised by the Kings of his ancient people And hereof the Apocalypse will make full proof being nothing else but the complement of all the Prophesies of the Old Testament concerning the calling of the Gentiles and therefore fulfilled in the subduing of the Romane Empire to Christianity and the vengeance taken upon the persecutors thereof Which though it cannot be fully proved without expounding all and every part of it to this effect yet because by the main hinges upon which it turns reasonable men may perceive that it cannot nor ever will be expounded to any other purpose I will stop here a while to shew this that men for the future may advise before they act upon supposition of such uncertain conceits I begin with the opening of the first Seale Apoc. VI. 1 2.
rank of the XII Apostles which afterwards he shews us was acknowledged by the XII themselves at Jerusalem Gal. II. 8 9. to wit when he went to Jerusalem with Barnabas about this question Acts XV. 1. for I can see no reason to doubt that all that he speaks of there passed during the time of this journey And in the mean time it was easie for those that stood for the Law to pretend Revelation from God and authority from the Apostles in matter of Christianity as well as Paul and Barnabas What possible way was there then to end this difference but that of the Apostle 1 Cor. XIV 32 33. The spirits of the Prophets are subject to the Prophets for God is not the God of unquietnesse but of peace as in all Churches of the Saints Whereupon vindicating his authority and challenging obedience to his Order even from Prophets which might be lifted up with Revelations to oppose he addeth Came the word of God from you or came it to you alone If any man think himself a Prophet or spirituall let him acknowledge the things that I write you to be the Commandements of God That is that Apostles being trusted to convey the Gospel to the world were to be obeyed even by Prophets themselves as the last resolution of the Church in the will of God granting his Revelations with that temper that as one Prophet might see more in the sense effect and consequence of Revelations granted to another then himself could doe in which regard the spirits of the Prophets were to be subject to the Prophets so for the publick order of the Church all were to have recourse to the Apostles whom he had trusted with it If then the Church of Antiochia in which were many Prophets and among them such as Paul and Barnabas indowed with the immediate Revelations of the Holy Ghost Acts XIII 1. must resort to Jerusalem the seat of the Apostles to be resolved in matters concerning the state of the Church how much more are we to beleeve that God hath ordained that dependence of Churches without which the Unity of no other humane Society can be preserved when he governeth them not but by humane discretion of reasonable persons Besides we are here to take notice that the Church of Antiochia being once resolved the Churches of Syria and Cilicia are resolved by the same Decree Acts XVI 4. Because being planted from thence they were to depend upon it for the Rule and practice of Christianity Therefore it is both truly and pertinently observed that the Decree made at Jerusalem was locall and not universall which had it been made for the whole Church there could not have been that controversie which we finde was at Corinth by S. Paul 1 Cor. VIII 1. about eating things offered to Idols Neither could the Apostle give leave to the Corinthians to eat them materially as Gods creatures not formally as things offered to Idols as he does 1 Cor. VIII 7. had the Body of the Apostles at Jerusalem absolutely forbid the eating of them to Gentile Christians for avoiding the scandall of the Jewish Christians But because the Decree concerned onely the Church of Antiochia and so by consequence the Churches depending upon it therefore among those that depended not upon it for whom the Rule was not intended it was not to be in force There is yet one reason behinde which is the ground of all from the Originall constitution of the Synagogue Moses by the advice of Jethro ordained the Captains of Thousands Hundreds Fifties and Tens to judge the Causes of the people under himself Ex. XVIII 24 25. To himself God joyned afterwards LXX persons for his assistance Num. XI 16. But these Captains were to be in place but during the pilgrimage of the wildernesse For when they came to be setled in the land of Promise the Law provideth that Judges and Ministers be ordained in every City Deut. XVI 18. Who if there fell any difference about the Law were to repair to Jerusalem to the successors of Moses and his Consistory for resolution in it Deut. XVII 12. by which Law wheresoever the Ark should be this Consistory was to sit as inferiour Consistories in all inferiour Cities Most men will marvell what this is to my purpose because most men have a prejudice that the power of the Church is to be derived from the Rights and Privileges of the Priests and Levites during the Law though there be no reason for it For these Rights and Privileges were not onely temporary to vanish when the Gospel was published but also while the Law stood but locall and personall not extending beyond the Temple or land of Promise over any but their own Tribe But it is very well known that from the time of the Greekish Empire and partly afore it Judaisme subsisted in all parts wheresoever the Jews were dispersed and that wheresoever it subsisted there were the people to be governed and regulated in the observation of the Law and the publique worship of God according to the same frequented also all over the land of Promise whereas the Temple stood but in one place It is also manifest that this Law which gave the Consistory power of life and death to preserve the Body of that people in Unity and to prevent Schisms upon different Interpretations of the Law was found requisite to be put in practice in their Dispersions to wit as to the determining of all differences arising out of the Law not as to the power of life and death to inforce such sentences this power being seldome granted them by their Soveraigns For at Alexandria we understand by Philo in his Book de Legatione ad Caium that there was such a Consistory as also in Babylonia there was the like as the Jews writings tell us for the little Chronicle which they call Seder Olam Zuta gives us the names of the Heads thereof for many ages And after the destruction of the Temple it is manifest not onely by their writings as Semach David Sepher Juchasin and the like but by Epiphanius in the Heresie of the Ebionites and the Constitutions of the Emperors remaining in the Codes Tit. de Judaeis Coelicolis that there continued a Consistory at Tiberias for many ages the Heads whereof were of the family of David as Epiphanius agreeing with the Jews informeth us in the place aforenamed And as by the story of Saul in the Acts it appears that the Jews of Damascus were subject to the Government at Jerusalem so by Epiphanius in the Heresie of the Ebionites it appears that the Synagogues of Syria and Cilicia were subject to the Consistory at Tiberias as I have shewed out of Benjamins Itinerary in the Discourse of the Apostolicall form of Divine Service p. 67. that the Synagogues of the parts of Assyria and Media were to that in Bagdat and without doubt that great Body of Jews dispersed through Aegypt was to that at Alexandria As for the Law
desired who having white Robes granted them in stead of that present justice which their Prayers sollicited are afterwards described standing with their faces toward the Throne the Lamb and the Elders as the People in the Church at Divine Service towards the Bishop and Presbyters Which particulars too long here to be deduced are easie to be observed by comparing Apoc. V. 8. VI. 9 10 11. VII 12 14. VIII 3 4 5. Adde hereunto the saying of Ignatius that the Bishop in his Church bears the figure of the Father of All to wit in the whole Church Triumphant and unto that the Ordinary expression of the Jews when they use the term of God and his House of Judgement 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is his Court or Consistory to represent the Majesty of God sitting in Counsell or in Judgement upon the World with the Angels about him in the Old Testament but the Saints in the New attended by the Angels Mar. XIX 28. Luc. XXII 30. 1 Cor. VI. 2. Apoc. XX. 4. which expression of theirs is manifestly borrowed from the Scriptures of the old Testament every where representing the Majesty of God in this posture Ps LXXXIX 8. Dan. VII 9. Psal CXLIX 1. Deut. XXXII 2. and you have not onely a Commentary upon this whole passage but also a Confirfirmation of all that hath been or shall be said that the Bishop and Presbyters are the same in the Church as the Sanedrin and the Head of them in the Synagogue All this is yet more fortified by the testimony of Tertullian De Praescript cap. XXXVI that the very Chairs in which the Apostles sate in their Churches were extant in his time as saith he were also the very Originals of their Epistles in the Churches to whom they were sent and as the Chair of S. James at Jerusalem was extant in Eusebius his time Eccles Hist VII 19. Adde further The uppermost Seats in Synagogues which the Scribes and Pharisees desired Luc. XI 43. adde the Apostle 1 Cor. XIV 25 30. distinguishing between the Seats of private persons and Prophets which the supposed S. Ambrose expounds by the Custome of sitting in the Synagogue as I have shewed in the same place adde The Chair of Moses on which the Scribes and Pharisees sate in succession to him who taught the people in that posture with the Priests sitting about him as Philo expoundeth the Text Num. XV. 33. Mat. XXIII 2. and I suppose we have not only evidenced to common sense the Superiority of the Bishop above the Presbyters by his Place in the Church but also the distinction of the Clergy from the People by the same Which Point that I may deduce with that care which the consequence of it requires it will be worth the inquiry first by what title of Right the Celebration and Consecration of the Eucharist belongs only to Presbyters which as it seems to be agreed upon on all sides so let the Reason also once be agreed upon why it belongs only to them and thereby it will appear that it is convertible with the Power of the Keys that is that the Power of the Keys also belongs only to Presbyters whereas the Offices of Preaching and baptizing are communicable to their inferiours and that it belongs also to all Presbyters and so by consequence that there is no such thing as Lay Elders The Presbyterians stiling their Pastors Ministers of the Word and Sacraments in opposition to their Lay Elders seem to ground this Right upon the Commission of our Lord to his Apostles Goe preach and make Disoiples all nations Baptizing them as if this were the Office wherein Presbyters succeed the Apostles though of the Eucharist there is here never a word But if they consider what it is to Preach the Gospel to Unbeleevers or rather what it was before the Gospel was received any where it will easily appear that unlesse they be mad men that go about it it is necessary that they be indowed with abilities to make it appear even to the enemies of the Gospel that they are sent by God to Preach it Therefore no man succeeds the Apostles in the Office of Preaching the Gospel to the Nations And therefore if they will take notice they shall easily observe that the Title of Minister of the Gospel Minister of the Word of the New Testament Minister of the Church and others equivalent are never given to any but the Apostles in the Scriptures unlesse it be to their Scholars and Substitutes the Evangelists because they were to the Apostles as the Apostles to Christ and Christ to God that is they were Ministers of the Apostles assumed by them to the work which Christ had trusted them in Person with of Preaching the Gospel and planting Christianity And therefore when need was were able to make their Commission appear by the works they did though in an inferiour degree because they proceeded upon that stock of reputation which the Apostles had won the Gospel by their Preaching and Miracles Such titles you shall finde attributed to the Apostles and their Followers and Substitutes 1 Cor. III. 5. 2 Cor. III. VI. 4. XI 23. Col. I. 23 25. Eph. III. 7. VI. 21. 1 Thess III. 2. Col. IV. 7. I. 7. Acts I. 17. VI. 4. XX. 24. XXI 19. but no where to Presbyters For the name of Presbyters as also of Bishops is Relative to the People of those Churches whereof they are Bishops and Presbyters signifying them to be the best qualified of all the Body of those Churches chosen and constitute to conduct the rest in Christianity And therefore the Apostles also are Presbyters as S. Peter and S. John style themselves 1 Pet. V. 1. 2 John 1. 3 John 1. because the greater includes the lesse and because they had power in all Churches as Presbyters in one But Presbyters are never called Apostles because the greater is not included in the lesse and because Presbyters never had Commission to preach the Word or the Gospel in the sense whereof I speak here that is to publish the Gospel to Unbeleevers And whereas there is the same difference between 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 on the one part and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 on the other as there is between Publishing the Gospel to Vnbeleevers and instructing Christian Assemblies in it we never finde the former attributed to any Presbyter in the Scriptures but we finde both attributed to the Apostles because their Commission was to Publish the Gospel to all Nations and to make them Disciples by Baptizing them and being such to Teach them further to observe all that our Lord commandeth Mat. XXVIII 19 20. Mar. XVI 15. Thus the Apostles Acts V. 42. ceased not to Teach and Preach Jesus Christ in Houses and in the Temple To Teach the Church in those Houses where the Christians assembled to serve God as Christians and to Preach to the Jews in the Temple whither they resorted for that Service Acts II. 42 46.
So Acts XV. 35. Paul and Barnabas continued at Antiochia Teaching that is the Church and preaching the Gospell to wit to Unbeleevers And with the same difference it is said of our Lord in the Gospels Mat. IV. 23. IX 35. XI 1. that he Taught to wit as a Prophet who had always the Privilege of Teaching in the Synagogues as his Disciples also by the same Title and preached the Gospel as sent by God for that extraordinary purpose But though the Apostles being sent to preach the Gospel were by consequence to Teach the Church yet is it never said that Presbyters being appointed to Teach the Church were also called to Preach the Gospel For their Relation being to Churches as much perswaded of the truth of Christianity as themselves they needed no such qualities as might make evidence that they were sent immediately from God to convince the world of the truth of it But onely such understanding in it above the people of their respective Churches as might inable them to conduct the People thereof in it And therefore what hindreth their Inferiours also to be imploied in Teaching the Church which now we call Preaching For if our Lord and his Apostles imploied their respective Ministers in Teaching those whom they could not attend upon themselves and in all Churches after the example of the first at Jerusalem Deacons or Ministers were Ordained to wait upon the Bishops and Presbyters of the same in the execution of their Office is it not the same thing for Bishops and Presbyters to imploy their Deacons in Preaching to those of their own Church as it is for the Apostles at Jerusalem to imploy S. Steven and S. Philip S. Paul Timothy or Erastus or Tychieus or Epaphroditus in Preaching to Unbeleevers for there remains as much difference in their Charges as in their Chiefs from whom they are imploied Besides who is able to prove by the Scriptures that those who are called Doctors 1 Cor. XII 28. Eph. IV. 12. were all of them men Ordained by Imposition of Hands as Presbyters Between whom and Evangelists there seems to be the same difference as between 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 on the one part and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 on the other this relating to Assemblies of Christians and importing the instructing of them in the right understanding of that Christianity which they already beleeve and professe that to those who are not Christians as undertaking to reduce them to Christianity which supposeth Commission and abilities answerable Further the supposed S. Ambrose upon Eph. IV. 12. comparing Evangelists with Deacons says that Deacons also taught without a Chair The custome of the Church then admitting them to Preach upon occasions but not sitting as the Bishop and Presbyters did Because they did not sit but stand in the Church as the Angels in the Revelation about the Presbyters Chairs as attending upon their commands And what is this but the same which you finde in use in the Synagogue Acts XIII 14. where Paul stands up to Preach whereas our Lord sits down like a Doctor when he goes to Preach in the Synagogue Luc. IV. 20 by which it appears that it was of custome drawn from the Synagogue for Deacons to Preach in the Church And indeed in the last place the practice of the Synagogue together with the reason of it and the Primitive practice of the Church agreeable to the same seems to make as full proof as a reasonable man can desire in a matter of this nature For in the Synagogue it is so manifest that Jurisdiction is above Doctrine and the Power of Governing above the Office of Teaching that the Prophets themselves who were Doctors of the Law immediately sent by God were subject to the Power and Jurisdiction of the Consistory setled by the Law Deut. XVII 8 12. So that though by the Law of Deut. XVIII 18. the whole Synagogue are subject to Gods curse if they obey not the Prophet by whom God speaks yet because it was possible that false Prophets might pretend to be sent from God therefore in the next words of the Law a mark is given to discern who was sent by God and who was not and he that pretended to be sent by God and was not being tried by this mark became liable to capitall punishment by the Law of Deut. XVII 8 12. for teaching contrary to that which the Consistory taught So that by this Law the Consistory hath Power of life and death even over Prophets whom they judged to teach things destructive to the Law And by this Power not usurped but abused our Lord also suffered under Pilate according to that which he had said in respect of this Power It is unpossible that a Prophet perish out of Jerusalem Luc. XIII 33. that is not condemned by the Consistory The Successors of the Prophets after the Spirit of Prophesie ceased that is their Scribes and Wise men and Doctors received the Privilege of Teaching the Law from their Masters For whosoever had learned in the School of a Doctor till forty years of age was thenceforth counted a Doctor as the Talmud Doctors determine and thereby privileged to decide matters of Conscience in the Law provided that he did it not while his Master lived and where he was R. Solomon upon the Title Sanedrin X. 2. Maimoni in the Title of Learning the Law cap. V. But if I mistake not in our Lords time they were counted so at thirty years of age For Irenaeus II. 39. says that our Lord began to Preach at the same age at which men were counted Doctors manifestly referring to this Rule of the Synagogue And this is the Reason which the Church afterwards followed in all those Canons by which it is forbidden that any man be made Presbyter being lesse then thirty years of age because at those years our Lord and S. John Baptist began to Preach though by an extraordinary Commission yet according to the custome of the Synagogue in their time saith Irenaeus But by Imposition of Hands they were further qualified to sit and Judge in their Consistories Whereby we see how Jurisdiction includes Doctrine but is not included in it So that the Metaphoricall Jurisdiction of the Church by the power of the Keys belonging as all sides agree to Presbyters it is agreeable to the perpetuall custome of Gods people that the Office of Teaching be communicable to their inferiours But with such dependence upon the Bishop and Presbyters as may be correspondent to the Rule of the Synagogue In which he that taught any thing as of Gods Law contrary to the Consistory and persisted in it was liable to capitall punishment by the Law so often quoted of Deut. XVII 8 Sanedrin X. 2. Maimoni in the Title of Rebels cap. III. And therefore he that Teaches contrary to the Church it behoveth that he be liable to Excommunication from it And upon these terms I suppose those of the Congregations will give
upon the doing of the act it was to be signified that it might be known what was to be done The Excommunication of Andronicus is by Synesius his eight and fiftieth Epistle signified to the Churches with this protestation That if any Church admitted him without giving satisfaction to theirs it would thereby cause Schism and dissolve the unity of the Church Infinite more might be produced to this purpose for hereupon it is that all Bishops are many times in the Primitive Records of the Church accounted to have a charge of the whole Church because of their interesse to give advise and thereby to concur in the setling of all affairs of other Churches that might conduce to the quiet or unquietnesse of the Whole Which as it was solemnely done by the Assemblies of Synods so it was every day done by this intercourse which in time of Persecution supplied the use of them to better effect then they were found to produce in time of peace And this seems to me a peremptory argument against the Presbyteries because this intercourse was a matter of daily necessity whereas by the design of the Presbyteries there is no standing Body to which the Church can have recourse for assistance in the ordinary occasions thereof which concern other parts but the Presbyteries of Congregations which themselves condemne as uncapable to deal in such matters when they give them not power to excommunicate Therefore it is of consequence that in the greatest residences of the World those Bodies of Churches should be always standing to which the Church might have daily resort either to receive or communicate advise judgement sentence and whatsoever was to passe for the maintenance of unity in the exercise of Christianity so that what there should be received might by consequence be presumed to be received by all Christians contained under the same not having any pretense to oppose such a consent as they were prejudiced with And thus upon the proof of the institution of Churches in Cities it follows that the Power of the Keys and all the productions and branches of the same as to their respective Bodies in concurrence with other Churches of like Rank and dependence on those of higher is by consequence deposited with the same To conceive aright of the correspondence between the Constitution of the Church and the Synagogue which it is manifest our Lord himself pointed at in choosing XII Apostles and LXX Disciples as it is touched here p. 72. we are to deduce it from the vailing of the Gospel within the Law and the discovering of the New Testament by taking away the vail of the Old By reason whereof the Church is the spirituall Israel as the Synagogue was Israel according to the flesh no otherwise then the Gospel is the Law spiritually understood A thing so manifest by all the passages of the Old Testament produced expounded and applied not onely by the Apostles but by our Lord himself in the New that he shall of necessity doe great wrong to Christianity that shall take in hand to maintain it against Judaism without drawing this ground into consequence Now it is manifest that the People of Israel being made a free People by the act of God bringing them out of Aegypt and entitling them to the Land of Promise upon the Covenant of the Law had Moses not onely for their Prophet and chief Priest for by him Aaron and his Successors are put in possession of the Priesthood and the Tabernacle it self and all the pertinences thereof made and consecrated but also for their King their Lawgiver their Judge and Commander in Chief of their forces under God if not rather God by Moses For after the decease of Moses we see that either God by some extraordinary immediate signification of his will and pleasure stirred up some man to be in his stead for the time or if there were none such then he took upon him to rule their proceedings himself in as much as by answering their demands by Vrim and Thummim he directed them what to doe and what courses to follow in the publick affairs that concerned the State of that People Whereupon when they required Samuel to make them a King he declareth that it was not Samuel but himself whom they had rejected because they had rejected him whom God had immediately given them in his own stead so that by his naturall death the Power returned to God as at the beginning Under Moses the XII Heads of the Tribes Representatives of the XII Patriarchs commanded the Militia of their respective Tribes divided into Thousands Hundreds Fifties and Tens which division by divers passages of the Scriptures appears to have continued to after ages without doubt for no other reason but because the Lot of every Tribe was divided amongst them according to the same And the chief of these divisions are they whom Moses upon Jethroes advise assumed to himself to judge the causes of lesse moment referring the greater to him who over and above that charge was to goe between the people and God in all things which he should please immediately to determine as you may see by the Text of Exodus XIX 16 19 20. This Office it is which he assumed afterwards LXX of the Elders of Israel to assist him in which by the Law so often quoted of Deut. XVII 8 are afterwards made a standing Court resident at the place of the Tabernacle to judge the last result of all causes concerning the Law and to determine all matter of Right not determined by the letter of the same So that by consequence the judgement of inferiour causes arising upon the Laws given by God resorteth unto the inferiour Consistories of severall Cities constituted by the Law of Deut. XVI 18. though perhaps partly in the Hands of those Captains before the Laws were altogether provided or put in force which dependeth much on the possession of the Land of Promise This is the reason that those of the High Consistory are called the Elders of Israel but those of other Consistories barely Elders or the Elders of such or such a City as Deut. XXII 2 3. Let thy Elders goe forth and let the Elders of the next City take Thy Elders that is the Elders of Israel So those of the Great Consistory are ordinarily called in the Gospel as also the Scribes of the People and thy Scribes is used there for those of the High Consistory whereas the bare name of Scribes extended far further to other manner of persons As also the bare name of Rulers and that of Rulers of the People of Israel are to be understood with the like difference Now wherein consists the correspondence between the Order of the Church and this of the Synagogue The King of the Church without doubt is our Lord Christ alone who hath absolute Power over it and because he is in heaven his Militia is also heavenly even Michael and his Angels that fight for the Church against the Devil and
all that act upon the interesse and title thereof derived from the immediate appointment of God doe by their proceedings disclaim as I have declared much more is it to be presumed that all States notwithstanding the profession of Christianity must needs stand obliged to doe For all States content themselves with the procuring of civile justice for which they are instituted not tying themselves to question whether that which is done be agreeable to the will of God which the Gospel declareth either for the thing that is done which the Gospel many times determineth more strictly then the Laws of civile States doe or for the sincerity of intention which it is to be done with Wherefore if Christianity come to be limited by the determinations of civile Powers then must the truth of the Gospel and the spirituall righteousnesse which it requireth be measured by those reasons which the publick peace and civile justice which preserveth the same may suggest Whereas it hath been declared that it is not the bare profession of Christianity that intitleth any man to any degree of superiority in the Church but that promotion to all degrees of the Clergy doth by the originall institution and appointment thereof presuppose some degree of proficience in the understanding and practice of Christianity rendring them both able and willing to regulate all controversies of Christianity not according to Interesse of State but according to the will of Christ and that spirituall righteousnesse which he advanceth And though it is many times seen that Secular persons are more learned and pious in Christianity then others of the Clergy yet I suppose no man of common sense will presume it so soon of him that is not inabled nor obliged to it by his profession as of him that is And when the question is what is agreeable to the appointment of God in such matters as these I suppose it is no presumption that God hath instituted any thing because it is possible for in morall matters what is absolutely and universally impossible but because it is most conducible to the intent purposed And that to the purposed end of maintaining the truth of the Gospel and that spirituall righteousnesse which it advanceth it is more conducible that those things which concern it be determined by those that are inabled by their profession to spend their time in searching the truth and engaged by the same to advance the spirituall righteousnesse of Christ then barely Christians as Secular Powers As for the reason of this resolution because if the Power of determining matters of Faith might be in any person not subject to the State which the determination must oblige all that are to be obliged by it must become thereby subjects to the Power that maketh it As supposing the temporall Power of the Pope it is insoluble so supposing what hath been premised it ceaseth For seeing nothing prejudiciall to the publick Peace or to the Powers of the World that maintain the same can be within the Power of the Church to determine it cannot be prejudiciall to any Christian State to receive the resolutions and determinations of Ecclesiasticall matters from Councels which may consist of persons not subject to them as well as of such as are For if any thing prejudiciall to the publick peace and lawfull Powers that maintain it be advanced under pretense of Christianity that is if this Power be abused then have the Secular Powers right to God as well as Power to the world to punish such attempts But the Church neither right to God nor Power to the world of resisting them though their Power be ill used to the suppression of Christianity and of that Ecclesiasticall Power that standeth by it because it is to be maintained by suffering the Crosse and not by force As for the Power of binding and loosing it is very well understood to consist as well in judging that which is questioned to be consistent or inconsistent with that Christianity which a man professeth as in remitting or retaining sin that is in allowing or voiding the effect of Baptism which is the Communion of the Church But whereas it is said that the first is the right of the State the second the office of the Pastors of the Church I demand whether these Pastors shall have Power to dissent in case the judgement of the State agree not with their own or not For that this may fall out it is manifest and that any man by his quality in the Church should be bound to proceed in remitting and retaining sin according to his own judgement when as by his subjection to the State he is bound to proceed according to the judgement thereof is an inconvenience as manifest Whereas that a man should be bound by his obligation to the Church to proceed according to his own judgement in Church matters and by his subjection to the State to suffer for it when it is contrary to the judgement thereof is so farre from being an inconvenience that it is the necessary consequence of bearing Christs Crosse The same reason takes place in that which is said that the election of Pastors belongs to the State and the Consecration to Pastors For I have often shewed in the premises that Imposition of Hands is a sign of consent to the constituting of those who receive the same implying a Power of dissenting for the use whereof they are to render account if it be used amisse And truly that Paul and Barnabas should be called Apostles Acts XIV 4 13. in regard of their sending by the Holy Ghost Acts XIII 1 I count it not strange For the extent of the word and the use thereof will bear it Though it is manifest that otherwise Barnabas had Commission from the Church at Jerusalem Acts XI 22. that is from the Apostles Paul not from men nor by men but by Jesus Christ and God the Father that raised him from the dead Gal. I. 1. though acknowledged first as to the Commission which he received with Barnabas Acts XIII 2. by the Church of Antiochia but afterwards in the right of the XII Apostles by themselves at Jerusalem Gal. II. 9. But I count it strange that to prove the Power of the State in choosing Pastors it should be alleged that this dictate of the Holy Ghost by which Paul and Barnabas were set apart to the work for which they were designed Acts XIII 2. was to be acknowledged for the dictate of the Holy Ghost by the Church of Antiochia I have shewed that under the Old Testament the Consistory were to judge of Prophets and to obey them being received which power was sufficiently abused among them I doe beleeve also that there was means given the Church to be resolved in the same that the precept of the Apostle 1 Cor. XII 3. 1 John IV. 1 tendeth to that effect that the grace of discerning Spirits 1 Cor. XII 9. was to such a purpose I remember the words of S. Ambrose upon