of Religion for that is no more in our power than it is to be all of one stature or complexion but that we should all unanimously consent in all those fundamental Articles of which that one Faith consists which is the common Creed of Christians So that it is not the differing of one Church from another in Doctrines that are either remote from or near the foundations of Christianity that dissolves their Communion in the Christian Faith but so long as the essential Doctrines of the Gospel are secured on both sides no corrupt Doctrines on either side can warrant a breach of Communion between them It is true if the erring Church imposes the belief of its errors as a Condition of its Communion no Church or Christian that believes them to be errors can lawfully Communicate with it be those errors never so small or inconsiderable not that in themselves they are a sufficient cause of separation but because they who do not believe them cannot profess they do without telling a lie which is a condition that is simply unlawful And so also when the errors are such as do corrupt the vital and essential parts of her Worship so that there is no communicating with her in her Worship without communicating in her corruptions all Churches and Christians are obliged to abstain from its Communion not because of the errors simply considered in themselves but because they profane and desecrate her Worship with those sinful intermixtures they infuse into it so that we cannot joyn with her in her Worship without joyning with her in her sin so that there is no error can separate any Church or Christian from the Catholick Communion of Faith but only Heresie which is a perverse renunciation of some essential part or fundamental Article of that Faith. Secondly The Communion which the particular Churches of which the Catholick Church consists hold with each other is in all the Essentials also of Christian Worship By the Essentials of Christian Worship I mean the Invocation of the one Eternal God through the one Mediator Jesus Christ and the participation of the two Sacraments of Baptism and the Lord's Supper Hence the Apostle tells us that as there is but one common Faith wherein all true Christians communicate with each other so there is but one Lord Eph. 4.4 and but one God for us to address to and one Mediator between God and man for us to address by 1 Tim. 2.5 and therefore to address to this one God by this one Mediator is an essential part of Christian Worship And the same Apostle tells us that there is but one Baptism Eph. 4.4 and but one bread of which we are all partakers 1 Cor. 10 17. and therefore to participate of these Sacraments must also be essential to Christian Worship so that all those particular Churches that admit each others Members upon lawful terms to communicate with them in worshipping this one God through this one Mediator and in this one Baptism and one Eucharistical Bread and Cup are so far in Communion with the Church Catholick For in these acts of Christian Worship consists the principal part of Christian Communion and therefore that Church which refuses either to admit other Churches to communicate with her in these acts of Worship or to communicate with them in them upon lawful terms doth so far separate it self from the Christian Communion I say upon lawful terms because if it either require unlawful or refuse lawful ones it utterly excludes all other Churches from its Communion If on the one hand it hath sophisticated its Worship with any unlawful intermixtures so that there is no participating with her in the one without partaking with her in the other If we cannot pray with her to the one God by the one Mediator without praying to Creatures too or praying by other Mediators also If we cannot partake with her in her Baptism without partaking with her in some sinful and impure Rites of Baptism In a word if we cannot be admitted to receive the Lord's Supper with her without receiving it by halves or being obliged to pay divine homage to its Elements in this case I say all Christians and Christian Churches are utterly excluded by her from communicating with her in the Essentials of Christian Worship And so on the other hand if a Church forbid its Members to Communicate upon occasion with any other Church in these acts of Christian Worship upon lawful terms in so doing it divides it self from the Communion of the Church Catholick and though that Church it refuses to communicate with should through the neglect of its Discipline have a great many bad men as well as good in it though it should require the observation of a great many indifferent Rites Customs and Ceremonies yea and of contrary Rites and Customs to its own yet so long as the Essentials of its Worship are kept pure and entire and are not so blended with unlawful intermixtures but that we may safely partake of them without being at all obliged to partake of any sin in this case I say to refuse to Communicate with it is to separate from the Communion of the Catholick Church For for the same reason that any Church refuses to Communicate with this Church it must refuse to Communicate with all other Churches in the World because we cannot to this day nor ever could Communicate with any Church in the World in which there was not some defect of Discipline some intermixture of bad men with good and some indifferent Modes and Ceremonies of Worship Thirdly and lastly Another thing wherein those particular Churches into which the Catholick Church is distributed do communicate with each other is in the Essentials of Christian Regiment and Discipline for though the particular Modes and Circumstances of Christian Government and Discipline are not determined by divine Institution but left for the most part free to the prudent ordering and disposal of the Governours of particular Churches yet there is a standing form of Government and Discipline in the Church instituted by our Saviour himself which as I shall shew hereafter is this that there should be an Episcopacy or Order of men authorized in a continued Succession from the Apostles who were Authorized by himself to oversee and govern all those particular Churches into which the Church Catholick should be hereafter distributed to Ordain inferiour Ministers to teach and instruct and administer the holy Offices to particular Congregations and having Ordained them to guide and direct them in the discharge of their Functions to prescribe the particular Rules of outward Order and Decency to the People of the respective Churches committed to their Charge to confirm the weak and admonish the disorderly and correct the obstinate by excluding them from the Communion of the Church of Christ. These things therefore being all of divine Institution are the Essentials of Christian Government and Discipline in which all Christian Churches are obliged to Communicate
spiritual Government in his Church and it is as true that all Government whether Spiritual or Temporal includes a Legislative Power in it or a power of commanding its Subjects but this is no limitation of the commanding power of Sovereign Princes who must still be obeyed in all things where Christ hath not countermanded though the Church should command the contrary for Christ never authorized the Governours of his Church to controul the commanding Power of Princes but hath left all matters of indifference as absolutely to their disposal and determination as ever they were before his spiritual Government was erected and matters of indifference are the sole matter both of purely Civil and purely Ecclesiastical Laws and therefore after the Church by its Legislative power hath restrained any matter of Indifference the Civil Sovereign in whose disposal all matters of indifference are may if he see good occasion release and free it again and impose the contrary matter of indifference and if he doth so all Christian People are obliged by the express Commands of Scripture to obey him for the Scripture-commands of obedience to the Temporal Sovereignty have no such exception as this annexed to them except the Church command the contrary and in matters of duty what have we to do to make exceptions where God hath made none And indeed where there are two Legislative Powers the one must necessarily be subject to the other or it will be impossible for the Subject in many cases without sinning to obey either For when ever the Commands of the Civil State do happen to clash with the Commands of the Church either the Church must be obliged to submit to the State or the State to the Church or the Subject cannot possibly obey the one without sinning against the other If it be said that the Church must submit to the State in things appertaining to the State and the State to the Church and so both are supreme in their own Province I would fain know what is to be done when these two Powers differ about the things which appertain to the one and to the other the State saith this appertains to me and so commands it the Church saith this appertains to me and so forbids it now in this case it is certain that one or the other must be obliged to give way or the Subject can neither obey nor disobey either without sinning and which soever of the two it be that is obliged to give way by vertue of that Obligation it must be subjected to the other So that now the Question is only this which of the two Legislative Powers is Supreme and it would be impertinent to say that they are both Supreme in their proper Province the one in Civil and the other in Spiritual causes because it is in suspence whether the cause in which they countermand each other be Civil or Spiritual so that in this case I must either be obliged to obey neither which is notoriously false or whatsoever the cause be in it self to yield obedience to the one and to disobey the other and if I must obey the Civil Power whether the cause be Civil or Spiritual then the Civil Power must be supreme in both as on the contrary if I must obey the Church Power whether the cause be Spiritual or Civil it will as necessarily follow that the Church Power is supreme in both Which later we are as sure is false as the Scripture is true for in 〈◊〉 matters it is agreed on all hands that the Scripture concludes all men as well Clergy as Laity under the obligation of Obedience to the Civil Sovereign and that none are exempt no not the Apostles themselves or the Bishops succeeding them in the spiritual Government whether we consider them separately or conjunctly and if in all Civil Causes I am obliged to obey the command of the Civil Power then it is most certain that if the Cause in contest between that and the spiritual Power be really Civil I am obliged to disobey the countermand of the spiritual Power but if on the contrary I must disobey the Command of the Civil Power supposing the cause to be spiritual which way can I turn my self without danger of sinning so that unless one of these two Powers are Supreme in both causes when ever any cause happens to be contested between them as to be sure many must between two Rival Powers I can neither obey nor disobey without sinning against one or both and can we imagine that God who is the God of Order and not of Confusion would ever involve us in such inextricable difficulties by subjecting us to two supreme Powers that are so subject to clash and interfere with one another Wherefore although as I shall shew by and by the Church is invested with a Legislative Power whereby it can restrain things that were free and indifferent for its own security and decency and order yet this Power is subordinate to the Civil Legislation which is in all causes Supreme and cannot enact against it controul or countermand it in any indifferent matter whether Temporal or Spiritual but stands obliged to recede to the Civil Sovereign who hath the supreme disposal of all indifferent things and in all contested cases to veil its Authority to his And accordingly we find that during the first three hundred years when the Civil Powers were Enemies to Christianity and did no otherwise concern themselves with it than to ruin and extirpate it the Church made Laws for it self and by its own Legislative Power enacted whatsoever it judged convenient or necessary for its own security or edification but yet it never presumed in any indifferent matter to contradict the Laws of the Empire nor did ever any Christian because he was a Subject of the Church refuse to obey his Prince in any case whatsoever where God had not countermanded him as is most evident from hence because in all the History of those times we do not find one instance of any Christian that suffered for so doing In those days there were no Martyrs for indifferent things which to be sure there must have been had the Church then taken upon it to determine indifferences contrary to the Edicts of the Emperour but the only thing they then suffered for was their refusal to disobey the express Will of God in compliance with the wicked Wills of men which is an unanswerable Argument that in those days the Church never assumed to it self any supreme Authority over indifferent things either in Spirituals or Temporals but left that in those hands where God had placed it viz. in the hands of the Civil Sovereign with whose Imperial Laws its Canons never interfered with whose Legislative Power it never justled for the Wall but chearfully submitted to it in all things wherein it was not determined to the contrary by the express Will of God. And when afterwards the Civil Sovereign embraced Christianity he did not thereby devest himself
of his Supremacy over all indifferent things in all causes whatsoever but by his own Authority he not only convened General Councils and for the most part presided in them as particularly in that of Ephesus Chalcedon the sixth General one in Constantinople called Trullo and several others and inforced their Canons with his own Imperial Edicts but many times made Laws even in Church matters without them to which the Ecclesiastical Governours yielded the same Obedience as they did to the Decrees of the most oecumenical Councils for so not only Constantine who was the first Christian Emperour made Laws concerning the Festivals of the Church Ordaining what might and what might not be done upon the Lords Day and not only several of those Ecclesiastical Laws in Gratian's Collection are now confessed on all hands to be the Laws of Princes but the first Titles of the Code are all of them concerning Eâ—clesiastical matters and so also in the Laws of the Goths and Vandals the Authenticks and Capitulars of the French Kings there are numerous instances of the Legislative Power of Kings in Ecclesiastical matters and this power was openly asserted by the French Embassadours in the Council of Trent viz. that the Kings of France following the examples of other Christian Emperors had frequently made Laws for the Church which were so far from being countermanded by the Bishops of Rome that they received many of them into their own Canons and that the Gallican Church had been always governed by the Ecclesiastical Laws which were made by their Kings and Cardinal Cusanus tells us lib. 2. Cath. Concord c. 40. that he himself had collected Eighty six Chapters of Ecclesiastical Laws made by the ancient Emperors besides many others of Charles the Great and his Successors in which there are many things concerning the Popes and all other Patriarchs declaring that he never read that ever any Pope was asked to confirm those Laws or that ever they were accounted the less obligatory because they wanted the Papal confirmation And indeed before Pope Hildebrand who was the first Bishop that challenged the Supreme Legislation in Ecclesiastical affairs it is notoriously known that the greatest Prelates of the Church frequently addressed themselves to the Emperor for such good Laws as the present necessities of the Church called for Thus Pope Damasus intreated the Emperor Honorius to make a Law for the more Regular Election of the Popes Thus also Sergius Patriarch of Constantinople supplicated the Emperor Heraclius to forbid by a Pragmatick Sanction the admission of any man into the Clergy unless it were into a dead Place and it was as it is thought upon S. Ambrose's intreaty that Theodosius made a Law for the disanulling of Marriages within the Prohibited degrees so when the Emperor Iustinian turned the ancient Canons of the Church into Imperial Laws he was so far from being accused of being an Usurper of the Ecclesiastical Power that Pope Adrian IV. highly extolls him for so doing though in his 133 Novel that Emperor affirms that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 nothing is impervious to the inspection and cognisance of the King in which S. Austin accords with him when he affirms the Kings do nothing but their duty Cum in suo regno bona jubeant mala prohibeant non solum quae pertinent ad humanam societatem verum etiam quae pertinent ad divinam Religionem i. e. when they make good Laws not only concerning humane Society but also concerning divine Religion by all which it is evident that the Civil Powers for several ages after they became Christians did claim and exercise a supreme Legislative Power in causes Ecclesiastical as well as Civil and this without any contradiction from the Bishops and Governours of the Church for as for that saying Quid Imperatori cum Ecclesia What hath the Emperor to do with the Church It was not the Language of the Church but of that fireband Donatus who was the Ring-leader of one of the most factious and turbulent Heresies that ever infested the Christian World and if in those instances wherein they exerted their Legislative Power in Ecclesiastical Causes the Church had no power to Controul or Countermand them then neither hath it in any other instance of the same nature and if so then notwithstanding their subjection to our Saviour they still retain their Supreme Commanding Power over all matters of indifference whether it be in Civil or Ecclesiastical causes But then Secondly By this their subjection to our Saviour they are not deprived of their natural Right of being unaccountable to any but to God alone through Jesus Christ for all the difference between the state of Sovereign Powers in this matter before and after their subjection to Christs Mediatorial Scepter is only this that before they were accountable to God only immediatly whereas now they are accountable to God only through Iesus Christ for Christ being Authorized by God to Mediate for him or which is the same thing to be his Vicegerent in the World all things are now subjected to him and God now rules and judges rewards and punishes all men by him whether they are Subjects or Sovereigns Vassals or Emperors for so in the great transaction of the last day we are told that the Kings of the Earth shall be arraigned before his Judgment Seat Rev. 6.15 16 17. but though they are now accountable immediately to Christ who during this Evangelical Oeconomy is to rule and judge for God yet in respect of any Earthly Tribunal they remain altogether as Sovereign and unaccountable as ever for to be Sovereign and unaccountable are convertible terms and it is nonsense to say either that any Power is unaccountable which hath any Superiour or that any Power is accountable which is Sovereign and Supreme so that by necessity of nature those Powers which are Sovereign upon Earth must be unaccountable to any Power upon Earth because to call to account is an Act of Superiority and that which is Supreme can have no Superiour to account to so that unless it be made appear that Christ hath erected some earthly Tribunal that is Superiour to the Tribunals of the Supreme Civil Powers he must of necessity have left them as unaccountable as he found them Now it is plain that our Saviour erected no other Tribunal in this World but only that of the Spiritual or Ecclesiastical Government which he was so far from advancing above the Tribunal of the Civil Sovereign that while he was upon Earth he acknowledged himself to be subject and accountable thereunto though he was then the Supreme Bishop and Head of that spiritual Regiment and this he did not only by Recognizing Cesar's Right of receiving Tribute from him of which I have spoken before for by bidding them render to Cesar the things that are Cesars he leaves Sovereign Princes in the quiet possession of all those Rights which he found them possessed of and requires their Subjects to pay them whatsoever is
Subjection to Christ to render his Church is to Fence and Cultivate its Peace and good Order either by wholsom Laws of their own or by permitting and requiring it when occasion requires to make good Laws for it self and if need be by inforcing 'em with Civil Coercions for so when the Church was either broken by Schisms or corrupted by Errors and disorderly Customs it was always the practice of Christian Kings and Emperors even from the time that they became Christians to restrain and give a check to those Divisions and Disorders either by their own Royal and Imperial Edicts or by convening the Ecclesiastical Governors to Councils there to consult and agree upon such good Laws and expedients as the present necessities of the Church required and because these Laws being grounded upon mere Spiritual Authority could as such be inforced by no other Penalties than Spiritual which by bold and obstinate Offenders were frequently despised and disregarded therefore those holy Kings and Emperours thought themselves obliged as they were the Ministers of Jesus to strengthen and reinforce 'em with temporal Sanctions and Penalties by which means they became the Laws of the Empire as well as of the Church Of all which I have given sufficient Instances and all this was no more than what they were obliged to by vertue of their Subjection to Christ for being subjected to him they are his Viceroys in the World and do Reign and Govern by his Authority and since their Authority is his they must be accountable to him if they do not imploy it for him in Ministring to the necessities of his Church and Kingdom and therefore if when it is in their power to check a prevailing Schism or Corruption in the Church by wholsom Laws and Edicts they refuse or neglect to do it they must doubtless answer to him from whom they received their power and who being himself the Supreme Head of the Church hath constituted 'em its Guardians and Nursing-Fathers III. Another of those Ministries which Princes are obliged to render his Church is to Chasten and Correct the irregular and disorderly Members of it for though there are Spiritual Rods and Corrections which Christ hath solely committed to the Spiritual Government and which if men understood and considered the dire effects and consequences of 'em are sufficient to restrain and keep in awe the most obstinate Offenders yet when men are stupified in sin and do feel nothing but only what pains or pleases their bodies these Spiritual Corrections are insignificant to 'em they being such as make no impression on their corporeal Senses and so when men are hardened in Schism or Heresie to be sure they will despise the Ecclesiastical Rods as being confidently perswaded that they cannot be justly applied to 'em and that where they are applied unjustly they are only so many Spiritual scare-crows that can only threaten but not hurt 'em and therefore in these cases the Secular Powers are obliged by vertue of their Subjection to Jesus to second the Spiritual with the Temporal Rod and to awe such offenders with corporeal corrections as are fearless and insensible of the Censures of the Church And conformable hereunto hath been the constant practice of all good Kings and Emperors even from their first Conversion to Christianity as might easily be demonstrated by innumerable Instances out of Ecclesiastical History for they not only made Laws inforc'd with temporal Penalties for the regulation of the Clergy as well as Laity not only commanded and obliged their Bishops in case of notorious neglect to execute the Church Censures on the Schismatical Heretical and disorderly of both sorts but when they found those Spiritual Executions ineffectual they very often seconded 'em with temporal such as pecuniary mulcts Imprisonments and Banishments and though in the case of error and false belief they were always very tender and gentle yet whenever they found men busily propagating their Errors into Sects and Divisions to the disturbance of the Churches peace they thought themselves obliged to restrain their petulancy with temporal Chastisements And indeed as they are the Vice-roys of our Saviour they are ex officio the conservators of the peace of his Kingdom and stand obliged to exert that Authority he hath devolved upon 'em in the defence of its Unity and good Order which in many cases they can no otherwise do but only by restraining the Schismatical and disorderly with the terror of temporal corrections so that as well in the Church as in the Civil State they are the Ministers of God to us for our good and therefore if we do that which is evil we have just cause to be affraid for they bear not the Sword in vain for they are the Ministers of God Revengers to execute wrath upon them that do evil Rom. 13.14 IV. And lastly Another of those Ministries which Princes are obliged to render to Christ's Church by vertue of their subjection to him is to make good provision for the Decency of its Worship and for the convenient maintenance of its Officers and Ministers to take care that it hath decent and commodious places set apart for the publick Celebration of its Worship and that those places be supplied with such Ornaments and Accommodations as are sutable to those venerable Solemnities that are to be performed in them that so its Worship may not be exposed to contempt by the slovenliness and Barbarity of its outward appendages and this is the clothing of the Church which as it ought not on the one hand to be too Pompous and Gaudy that being naturally apt to distract and Carnalize the minds of its Votaries and to divert their attention from those spiritual exercises wherein the life and soul of its Worship consists so neither ought it on the other hand to be sordid and nasty that being as naturally apt to prejudice and distaste men against it and to create in their minds a loathing and contempt of it Now the furnishing the Church with such decent Places and Ornaments of Worship as do become the grave Solemnities of a spiritual Religion being a matter of Cost and Charge must necessarily belong to the Civil Powers who alone can lay Rates upon the Subject and have the sole Command and disposal of the publick Purse and therefore by vertue of their subjection to Christ they are obliged to take care that such Religious Places and Ornaments be provided as the Decency and convenience of his Worship do require And then as for the Ministers and Officers of his Church they are under the same Obligation to take care that they whose Office it is to serve at the Altar should live upon the Altar and that according to the different stations and degrees wherein they are placed that so they may neither be necessitated for a subsistence to involve themselves in secular affairs and thereby to neglect their spiritual Calling which is Burthen enough of all conscience for any one mans shoulders nor be tempted
of the Principal of the twelve Apostles and S. Iames was not so much as one of that number yet in the Church of Ierusalem he had the Priority of them both now considering that S. Iames is called an Apostle and considering the Preference he had in all these instances above the other Apostles at Ierusalem it is at least highly probable that he was peculiarly the Apostle of the Church of Ierusalem but if to all this evidence we add the most early Testimonies of Christian Antiquity we shall advance the Probability to a Demonstration for by the unanimous consent of all Ecclesiastical Writers S. Iames was the first Bishop of Ierusalem for so Hegesippus who lived very near the times of the Apostles tells us that Iames the Brother of our Lord called by all men the Iust received the Church of Ierusalem from the Apostles vid. Euseb. lib. 2. c. 23. so also S. Clement as he is quoted by the same Author l. 2. c. 1. tells us that Peter Iames and Iohn after the Assumption of Christ as being the men that were most in favour with him did not contend for the Honour but chose Iames the Just to be Bishop of Ierusalem and in the Apostolical Constistitutions that pass under the name of S. Clement which though not so ancient as is pretended yet are doubtless of very early Antiquity the Apostles are brought in thus speaking Concerning those that were ordained by us Bishops in our life time we signifie to you that they were these Iames the Brother of our Lord was Ordained by us Bishop of Ierusalem c. so also S. Ierom. de script Eccles. tells us that S. Iames immediately after the Passion of our Lord was ordained Bishop of Ierusalem by the Apostles And S. Cyril who was afterwards Bishop of that Church and therefore a most Authentick Witness of the Records of it calls Saint Iames the first Bishop of that Diocess Catech. 16. To all which we have the concurrent Testimonies of S. Austin S. Chrysostom Epiphanius S. Ambrose and a great many others and S. Ignatius himself who was an immediate Disciple of the Apostles makes S. Stephen to be a Deacon of S. Iames Ep. ad Trall and therefore since Stephen was a Deacon of the Church of Ierusalem S. Iames whose Deacon he was must necessarily be the Bishop of it Upon this account therefore S. Iames is called an Apostle in Scripture because by being Ordained by the Apostles Bishop of Ierusalem he had the Apostolick Power and Authority conferred on him for since it is apparent he was none of the Twelve to whom the Apostleship was at first confined he could no otherwise become an Apostle than by deriving the Apostleship from some of the Twelve and therefore since that Apostleship which he derived from the Twelve was only Episcopal Superiority over the Church of Ierusalem it hence necessarily follows that the Episcopacy was the Apostleship derived and communicated from the Primitive Apostles The second Instance of the Apostles Communicating their Apostolick Superiority to others is Epaphroditus who in Phil. 2.25 is stiled the Apostle of the Philippians But I suppose it necessary to send to you Epaphroditus my Brother and companion in labour and fellow souldier 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but your Apostle for so S. Ierom Com. Gal. 1.19 Paulatim tempore precedente alii ab his quos Dominus elegerat Ordinati sunt Apostoli sicut ille ad Philippenses sermo declarat dicens necessarium existimavi Epaphroditum c. i. e. by degrees in process of time others were ordained Apostles by those whom our Lord had chosen as that passage to the Philippians shews I thought it necessary to send unto you Epaphroditus your Apostle And Theodoret upon the place gives this reason why he is here called the Apostle of the Philippians 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. e. he was intrusted with Episcopal Government as being their Bishop so that here you see Epaphroditus is made an Apostle by the Apostles and his Apostleship consists in being made Bishop of Philippi A third instance is that of Titus and some others with him 2 Cor. 8.23 Whether any do inquire of Titus he is my partner and fellow helper concerning you or our Brethren be inquired of they are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Apostles of the Churches and the glory of Christ where it is plain they are not called the Apostles of the Churches merely as they were the Messengers of the liberality of the Churches of Macedonia for it was not those Churches but S. Paul that sent them vers 22. and therefore since they were not Apostles in relation to those Churches whose liberality they carried it must be in relation to some particular Churches over which they had Apostolical Authority and that Titus had this Authority over the Church of Crete is evident both from S. Pauls Epistle to him and from Primitive Antiquity As for Saint Pauls Epistle there are sundry passages in it which plainly speak him to be vested with Apostolical Superiority over that Church so Chap. 1. vers 5. For this cause left I thee in Crete that thou shouldst set things in order that are wanting and ordain Elders in every City as I have appointed thee For in the first place S. Paul here gives him the supreme judgment of things that were wanting with an absolute power to reform and correct them which is a plain demonstration of his Superiority in that Church Secondly he Authorizes him to ordain Elders in every City and whether these Elders were Bishops or Presbyters is of very little consequence as to the present debate for first it is of undoubted certainty that there were Presbyters in the Church of Crete before Titus was left there by the Apostle and secondly it is as evident that those Presbyters had no Power to ordain Elders in every City as Titus had for if they had what needed S. Paul to have left Titus there for that purpose What need he have left Titus there with a new power to do that which the Presbyters before him had sufficient power to do For if the Presbyters had before the power of Ordination in them this new power of Titus's would have been not only in vain but mischievous it would have look'd like an invasion of the Power of the Presbyters for S. Paul to restrain Ordination to Titus if before him it had been common to the whole Presbytery and upon that account have rather proved an occasion of strife and contention than an expedient of peace and good order From hence therefore it is evident that Titus had a Power in the Church of Crete which the Presbyters there before him had not and this Power of his extended not only to the establishment of good Order and the Ordaining of Elders but also to rebuking with all authority i. e. correcting obstinate offenders with the spiritual Rod of Excommunication chap. 2. vers 15. and taking cognisance of Heretical Pravity so as first to
which is the good of the Publick Since therefore the Church by Christs own institution is a governed Society of men we must either suppose its Government to be very lame and defective which would be to blaspheme the Wisdom of our Saviour or allow it to have a Legislative Power inherent in it But that de facto it hath such a Power in it is evident from the Practice of the Apostles who as all agree had the Reins of Church Government delivered into their hands by our Saviour for so in Acts 15.6 we are told that upon occasion of that famous Controversie about Circumcision the Apostles and Elders came together to consider of this matter where by the Elders by the consent of all Antiquity is meant the Bishops of Iudea Vid. Dr. Hammond on Acts 11. Note B. And after mature debate and deliberation this is the result of the Council It seemed good to the Holy Ghost and to us to lay upon you no greater burthen than these necessary things ver 28. so that those necessary things specified in the next verse were it seems laid upon them as a burthen i. e. legally imposed on them as matter of duty for herein it is plain the Apostles exercised a Legislative Power over those Christian Communities they wrote to viz. in requiring 'em to abstain from some things which were never prohibited before by any standing Law of Christanity and as the Apostles and Primitive Bishops made Laws by common consent for the Church in general so did they also by their own single authority for particular Churches to which they were more peculiarly related Thus St. Paul after he had prescribed some Rules to the Corinthians for their more decent communication of the Lords Supper tells them that other things he would set in order when he came among them 1 Cor. 11.34 but how could he otherwise do this than by giving them certain Laws and Canons for the better regulation of their Religious Offices so also 1 Cor. 16.1 the same Apostle makes mention of an Order or Canon which he gave to the Churches of Galatia which he enjoyns the Church of Corinth also to observe and in 1 Tim. 5. he gives Timothy several Ecclesiastical Rules to give in charge to his Church ver 7. so also Tit. 1.5 he tells Titus that for this cause he left him in Crete with Apostolick or Episcopal power that he might set in order the things that were wanting i. e. that by wholsom Laws and Constitutions he might redress those disorders and supply those defects which the shortness of S. Pauls stay there would not permit him to provide for By all which instances it is abundantly evident that the Governours of the Church have a Legislative Power inherent in them both to make Laws by common consent for the Regulation of the Church in general and to prescribe the rules of Decency and Order in their own particular Churches For what the Apostles and Primitive Bishops did to be sure they had Authority to do and whatsoever Authority they had they derived it down to their Successors And accordingly we find this Ecclesiastick Legislation was always administred by the Apostles Successors the Bishops who not only gave Laws both to the Clergy and Laity in their own particular Churches but also made Laws for the whole Church by common consent in their holy Councils wherein during the first four general Councils no Ecclesiastick beneath a Bishop was ever allowed a Suffrage unless it were by deputation from his Bishop and though in making Laws for their own Churches they generally conducted themselves by the advice and counsel of their Presbyters and sometimes also admitted them into their debates both in their Provincial and General Councils yet this was only in preparing the matter of their Laws But that which gave them the form of Laws was purely the Episcopal Authority and Suffrage and whatsoever was decreed either by the Bishop in Council with his Presbyters or by the Bishops in Council among themselves was always received by the Churches of Christ as Authentick Law. It is true this Legislative Power of the Church as was shewn before extends not so far as to controul the Decrees of the Civil Sovereign who is next to and immediately under God in all Causes and over all Persons Supreme and is no otherwise accountable by the Laws of Christianity than he was by the Laws of natural Religion and therefore as the Civil Sovereign cannot countermand Gods Laws so neither can the Church the Civil Sovereigns but yet as next to the Laws of God the Laws of the Civil Sovereign are to be obeyed so next to the Laws of the Civil Sovereign the Laws of the Church are to be obeyed II. Another peculiar Ministry of the Bishops and Governours of the Church is to Consecrate and Ordain to Ecclesiastical Offices For that those holy Ministries which Christ himself performed while he was on Earth such as preaching the Gospel administring the Evangelical Sacraments c. might be continued in his Church throughout all Generations he not only himself ordained his twelve Apostles a little before he left the World to perform those Ministries in his absence but in their Ordination transferred on them his own mission from the Father deriving upon them the same authority to ordain others that he had to ordain them that so they might derive their Mission to others as he did his to them through all succeeding Generations for this is necessarily implied in the Commission he gave them Iohn 20.21 As my Father hath sent me so send I you that is I do not only send you with full authority to act for me in all things as my Father sent me to act for him but I also send you with the same authority to send others that I now exercise in sending you for unless this be implied in their Mission he did not send them as his Father sent him unless he gave them the same authority to propagate their Mission to others that his Father gave him to propagate his Mission to them how could he say that he sent them as his Father sent him since he must have sent them without that very authority from his Father which he then exercised in sending them Now the Persons whom he sent were the Eleven Apostles as you will see by comparing this of S. Iohn with Luke 24.33.36 Mar. 16.14 Mat. 28.16 in all which places we are expresly told that it was the Eleven he appeared to when he gave this Commission and consequently it must be the Eleven to whom he gave it This Commission therefore of sending others being originally transferred by our Saviour upon the Apostolick Order no others could have right to transfer it to others but only such as were admitted of that Order none could give it to others but only those to whom Christ gave it and therefore since Christ himself gave it to none but Apostles none but Apostles could derive it and accordingly we
find in Scripture that all Ecclesiastick Commissions were either given by the hands of some of those first Apostles who received their Commission immediately from our Saviour or else by some of those secondary Apostles that were admitted into Apostolick Orders by them which secondary Apostles as was shewn before were the same with those whom we now call Bishops for so in Acts 6.3.6 the seven first Deacons we read of were Ordained by the Apostles the whole number of the Disciples being present but the Apostles only appointing and laying their hands on them and in Acts 14.23 we are told that Paul and Barnabas two of the Apostles ordained Elders in every Church that is of Lystra Iconium and Antioch and though these two were Ordained Apostles of the Gentiles by certain Prophets and Teachers in the Church of Antioch Acts 13.1.3 yet there is no doubt but those Prophets and Teachers where such as had received the Apostolick Character being ordained by the Apostles Bishops of the Churches of Syria for otherwise how could they have derived it For so Iudas and Silas are called Prophets Acts 15.32 and yet ver 22. they are said to be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is Rulers among the Brethren or Bishops of Iudea and afterwards we find that Ordination was confined to such as had been admitted to the Apostolate for so the power of laying on of hands in the Church of Ephesus was committed by S. Paul to Timothy whom he himself by the laying on of hands had ordained the Apostle or Bishop of that Church 1 Tim. 5.22 1 Tim. 1.6 so also the power of Ordaining in the Church of Crete was by S. Paul committed to Titus whom he had also Ordained the Apostle or Bishop of that Church Tit. 1.5 for this cause left I thee in Crete to ordain Elders in every City Thus all through the whole Scripture History we find the power of Ordination administred by such and none but such as were of the Apostolick Order viz. either by the Prime Apostles or by the secondary Apostles or Bishops And if we consult the Primitive Antiquities which to be sure in matters of fact at least are the best Interpreters of Scripture we shall always find the power of giving Orders confined and limited to Bishops which is so undeniable that S. Ierom himself who endeavours his utmost to equalize Presbyters with Bishops is yet fain to do it with an excepta Ordinatione Ep. ad Evagr. Quid facit excepta Ordinatione Episcopus quod Presbyter non faciat What can the Bishop do except Ordaining that the Presbyter may not do also III. Another peculiar Ministry of the Bishops and Governours of the Church is to execute that spiritual Iurisdiction which Christ hath established in it i. e. to Cite such as are accused of scandalous offences before their Tribunals to inspect and examine the Accusation and upon sufficient evidence of the truth of it to admonish the offender of his fault and in case he obstinately persist in it to exclude him from the Communion of the Church and from all the Benefits of Christianity till such time as he gives sufficient evidence of his Repentance and amendment and then to receive him in again For that Christ hath established such a jurisdiction in his Church is evident from that passage Mat. 18.16 17 18. Moreover if thy Brother shall trespass against thee go tell him his fault between him and thee alone if he shall hear thee thou hast gain'd thy Brother but if he will not hear thee then take with thee one or two more that in the mouth of two or three Witnesses every word may be established i. e. that thou mayst be able in case he doth not then amend to produce sufficient testimony of his guilt before the Churches Tribunal to which thou art next to apply thy self and if he shall neglect to hear them i. e. to promise amendment upon their admonition take them along with thee and tell it to the Church that so she may examine the matter and upon thy proving his guilt by sufficient witness may Authoritatively admonish him to amend but if he neglect to hear the Church let him be unto thee as an Heathen man and a Publican i. e. give him over for a desperate sinner as one that is to be ejected from the Communion of the Church and no longer to enjoy the common benefits of a Christian for verily I say unto you that it is to you of the Church before whom this obstinate Offender is cited and accused for now he speaks no longer in the singular number Whatsoever ye shall bind on Earth shall be bound in Heaven and whatsoever ye shall loose on Earth shall be loosed in Heaven i. e. whomsoever ye shall for just cause eject from the Communion of the Church into the state of a Heathen man and a Publican I will certainly exclude out of Heaven unless he reconcile himself to you by Confession and promise of amendment and if thereupon you pardon him and receive him into the Churches Communion I will most certainly pardon him too if he perform his promise for that by binding and loosing upon Earth our Saviour means excluding out of the Church and receiving in again is evident from that Parallel passage Mat. 16.19 I will give unto thee the Keys of the Kingdom of Heaven and whatsoever thou shalt bind on Earth shall be bound in Heaven and whatsoever thou shalt loose on Earth shall be loosed in Heaven where by the Keys of the kingdom of Heaven is plainly meant the Authority of a Steward to govern his Church or Family for so Isa. 22.21 22. God promises Eliachim that he would cloath him with the Robe of Shebna who was over the Houshold ver 15. i. e. Steward of the Kings Family and that he would commit Shebna 's Government into his hand c. and then it follows And the Key of the House of David will I lay upon his shoulders so he shall open and none shall shut and he shall shut and none shall open that is in short I will make him the Governour of the Family and give him power to admit or exclude what Servants he pleases and accordingly by the Keys of the Kingdom of Heaven must be meant the Government of the Church for so Keys denote Authority to Govern vid. Rev. 3.7 and by binding and loosing the power of shutting out of or readmitting into it and therefore in Iohn 20.23 this binding and loosing is thus expressed whose sins ye remit or loose shall be remitted or loosed whose sins ye retain or keep bound shall be retained or kept bound for though the words are different from those in S. Matthew yet they are of the same import and signification and consequently our Saviours meaning must be the same here as there viz. whose sins you loose from the penalty of exclusion from the Church I also will loose from the penalty of exclusion out of Heaven and whose sins
you keep bound or obliged to that Penalty I also will keep bound and obliged to this This is the Spirtual Iurisdiction which Christ hath established in his Church to bind or loose suspend or restore excommunicate or absolve and this he hath wholly deposited in the Episcopal Order For in all the above-cited places it was only to his Apostles that he derived this Iurisdiction they alone were the Stewards to whom he committed the Keys and Government of his Family and it was to them alone that he promised that they should sit upon twelve Thrones judging the twelve Tribes of Israel that is to Rule and Govern the spiritual Israel which is the Christian Church even as the Phylarchae or Chiefs of the Tribes governed the twelve Tribes of natural Israel Mat. 19.28 and hence in that Mystical representation of the Church by a City descending from Heaven Rev. 21. the Wall of it is said to have twelve foundations and upon them twelve names of the twelve Apostles ver 14. and those twelve foundations are compared to twelve precious stones to denote their power and dignity in the Church ver 19 20. and the Wall being exactly meted is found to be 144 Cubits that is twelve times twelve to denote that these twelve Apostles had each of them an equal portion allotted him in the Government and administration of the Church ver 17. This spiritual Iurisdiction therefore of governing the Church and administring the Censures of it being by our Saviour wholly lodged in the Apostolate none can justly claim or pretend to it but such as are of the Apostolick Order and accordingly in the Apostolick Age we find it was always administred either immediately by the Apostles themselves or by the Bishops of the several Churches to whom they communicated their Order for thus in the Church of Corinth it was S. Paul who pronounced the Sentence of Excommunication against the incestuous person for I verily as absent in body but present in spirit have judged or pronounced Sentence already as though I were present concerning him that hath done this deed 1 Cor. 5.3 and what he orders them to do ver 4 5. was only to declare and execute his Sentence and 2 Cor. 13.2 he threatens them that heretofore had sinned that if he came again he would not spare them and that by his not sparing them he meant that he would proceed against them with Ecclesiastical Censures is evident from ver 1. In the mouth of two or three Witnesses shall every word be established which are the very words of our Saviour Matt. 18.16 when he instituted the power of Censuring and then ver 10. he tells them that he wrote these things being absent lest being present he should use severity according to the power which the Lord had given them to edification and not to destruction by which it is plain he means the power of Excommunicating and 1 Cor. 4.21 he threatens to come to them with a Rod that is to chastise them with the Censures of the Church and with this Rod as he himself tells he chastised Hymenoeus and Alexander two stickling Hereticks in the Church of Ephesus whom he delivered unto Satan that they might learn not to blaspheme 1 Tim. 1.20 and as he frequently executed the Censures of the Church in his own Person so he derived this spiritual Iurisdiction to Timothy and Titus whom he Ordained Apostles or Bishops of the Church of Ephesus and Crete for so he orders Timothy against an Elder Receive not an Accusation but before two or three Witnesses which plainly implies his Authority to examine and try the causes even of the Elders themselves when they were accused and to punish them if he found them guilty for so it follows Them that sin rebuke before all that others also may fear 1 Tim. 5.19 20. so also he exhorts Titus to exercise this his spiritual Jurisdiction A man that is an Heretick after the first and second admonition reject Tit. 3.10 which plainly implies that he had an Authority inherent in him as he was the Apostle or Bishop of Crete to Cite Examine Admonish and Censure persons of erronious Principles and the same Authority it is evident was inherent in the Angels or Bishops of the seven Churches of Asia Thus the Bishop of Ephesus had Authority to try such as said they were Apostles and were not and to convict them for Liars Rev. 2.2 and the Bishop of Pergamus is blamed for tolerating the Sect of the Nicolaitans in his Church ver 14 15. and so also is the Bishop of Thyatira for suffering that woman Iezebel ver 20. which plainly implies that the Authority of curbing and correcting those profligate Sectaries was inherent in them else why should they be blamed any more than others for not restraining them From all which it is evident that the power of Christian Jurisdiction was Originally seated in the Apostolate and that throughout the Apostolick Age it was always exercised by such and only such as were admitted into that sovereign Order viz. either by the twelve Prime Apostles or by those secondary Apostles whom they ordained Bishops of particular Churches and accordingly we find in the Primitive Ages the Bishops were the sole administrators of this spiritual Iurisdiction and though ordinarily they administred it with the advice and concurrence of their Presbytery yet this was more than they thought themselves obliged to for thus S. Cyprian in the time of his recess did by his own single Authority Excommunicate Felicissimus Augendus and others of his Presbyters Ep. 38 39. and when Rogatianus a Bishop of his Metropolitick Church complained to him in a Synod of a disorderly Deacon he tells him that pro Episcopatus vigore Cathedrae authoritate i. e. by his own Episcopal authority without appealing to the Synod he might have chastised him And the fifth Canon of the first Nicene Council plainly shews that it was then the judgment of the Catholick Church that the power of spiritual Iurisdiction was wholly seated in the Bishops for it decrees that in every Province there should be twice a year a Council of Bishops to examine whether any person Lay or Clergy had been unjustly excommunicated by his Bishop which shews that then this Sentence was inflicted by the Bishop only though afterwards to prevent abuses it was decreed in the Council of Carthage that the Bishop should hear no mans Cause but in the presence of his Clergy and that his Sentence should be void unless it were confirmed by their presence but yet still the Sentence was peculiarly his and not his Clergies In some Churches indeed the Bishops did many times delegatâ— power to their Presbyters both to excommunicate and absolve as perhaps S. Paul himself did in the Church of Corinth but in this case the Presbyter was only the Bishops mouth and his Sentence received all its force from that Episcopal Authority he was armed with IV. Another peculiar Ministry of the Bishops and Governours of