28. 18. What the Apostles did in order to the Church Government before Pentecost 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 explained How the Apostles did divide Provinces whether Paul and Peter were confined to the circumcision and uncircumcision and different Churches erected by them in the same Cities What the Apostles did in order to settling particular Churches The Names and Office of Bishops Presbyters Deacons considered Four general Considerations laid down about the Apostles practice First It cannot be fully known what is was 2. Great probability they observe no one certain Form in setling Churches proved from Epiphanius Ierome Ambrose or Hilary 3. Their Case different from ours in regard of the paucity of Believers 4. If granted for any Form yet proves not the thing in question For 1. Offices appointed by them are ceased Widdows Deaconesses abolished 2. Rites and Customs Apostolical grown out of use 1. Such as were founded upon Apostolical Precepts Acts 15. 29. considered 2. Such as were grounded on their practice Holy kiss Love-feasts dipping in Baptism community of goods with several others HAving found nothing either in our Saviours practice or in the rules laid down by him conceived to respect Church-Government which determines any necessity of one particular Form the onely argument remaining which can be conceived of sufficient strength to found the necessity of any one form of Government is the practice of the Apostles who were by their imployment and commission entrusted with the Government of the Church of God For our Saviour after his Resurrection taking care for the Planting and Governing of his Church after his Ascension to Glory doth at two several times call his Apostles together and gives now their full Charter and Commission to them the first containing chiefly the power it self conferred upon them Iohn 20. 21. The other the Extent of that power Matth. 28. 19. In the former our Saviour tells them As the Father had sent him so did he send them Which we must not understand of a parity and equality of Power but in a similitude of the mission that as Christ before had managed the great affairs of his Church in his own Person so now having according to the Prophecies made of him at the end of seventy weeks made Reconciliation for iniquity by his Death and brought in everlasting Righteousness by his Resurrection He dispatcheth abroad his Gospel Heralds to proclaim the Iubilee now begun and the Act of Indempnity now past upon all penitent Offendors which is the Sense of the other part of their Commission Whosoever sins ye remit they are remitted and whosoever sins ye retain they are retained John 20. 23. i. e. as many as upon the Preaching the Gospel by you shall come in and yield up themselves to the tenders of Grace proclaimed therein shall have their former Rebellions pardoned but such as will still continue obstinate their former guilt shall still continue to bind them over to deserved punishment And to the end the Apostles might have some Evidence of the power thus conferred upon them He breathes the Holy Ghost on them and said Receive ye the Holy Ghost which we are not to understand of the Extraordinary gifts of the Holy Ghost which were not received till the day of Pentecost Act. 2. 1. but of the Authoritative power of preaching the Gospel which was now conferred upon them by the solemn Rite of breathing the Holy Ghost on the Apostles In which Sense the Church of England understands that Expression in the Ordination of Ministers as it implies onely the conferring thereby an authority for the preaching of the Gospel which being conveyed by Ordination is fitly expressed by the same wordâ— which our Saviour used in the conferring the same Power upon his Apostles at his sending them forth to be Gospel-Preachers After this comes the solemn appointed meeting of Christ with his Disciples at the mountain of Galilee where in probability besides the eleven were present the five hundered Brethren at once And here Christ more solemnly inaugurates the Apostles in their Office declaring all power to be in his hands and therefore appoints the Apostles to preach the Gospel to every creature that is to all men indefinitely Gentiles as well as Jewes which Matthew fully expresseth by all Nations Now are the Apostles left as chief Governours of the Church under Christ and in this last Commission wherein the extent of the Apostles power is more fully expressed there is nothing mentioned of any order for the Government of the Church under them not what course should be taken by the Church after their decease All that remains then to be inquired into is what the Apostles practice was and how far they acted for the determining any one form of Government as necessary for the Church The Apostles being thus invested in their authority we proceed to consider the Exercise of this authority for the Governing of the Church And here we are to consider that the Apostles did not presently upon their last Commission from Christ goe forth abroad in the World to Preach but were commanded by Christ to go first to Ierusalem and there to expect the coming of the Holy Ghost according to our Saviours own appointment Luke 24. 49. And therefore what Mark adds Mark 16. 20. that after Christs appearance to them the Apostles went abroad and preached every where working Miracles must either be understood of what they did onely in their way returning from Galile oo Ierusalem or else more probably of what they did indefinitely afterwarps For presently after we find them met together at Ierusalem whence they came from Mount Olivet where Christs Ascension was Here we find them imployed 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 saith Saint Luke in his Gospel which we render the Temple but I understand it rather as referring to the action than the place and is best explained by what Luke saith in Acts 1. 14. they were 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 continuing in Prayer and Supplication And that it cannot be meant of the Temple appears by the mention of the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 an upper room where they continued together For that it should be meant of any of the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 about the Temple is most improbable to conceive because not only those ninty Cells about the Temple were destined and appointed for the Priests in their several 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or times of Ministration and it is most unlikely the chief Priests and Masters of the Temple should suffer those whom they hated so much to continue â—o near them without any molestation or disturbance While the Apostles continue here they proceed to the choice of a new Apostle instead of Iudas thereby making it appear now necessary that number was to the first forming of Churches when the vacant place must be supplyed with so great solemnity Which office of Apostleship which Iudas once had and Matthias was now chosen into is call'd by Peter
of the assembly of Presbyters might be so called what superiority can be deduced thence any more then such a one enjoys Nay if in the Prophetical style an unity may be set down by way of representation of a multitude what evidence can be brought from the name that by it some one particular person must be understood And by this means Timothy may avoid being charged with leaving his first Love which he must of necessity be by those that make him the Angel of the Church of Ephesus at the time of writing these Epistles Neither is this any wayes solved by the Answer given that the name Angel is representative of the whole Church and so there is no necessity the Angel should be personally guilty of it For first it seems strange that the whole diffusive body of the Church should be charged with a crime by the name of the Angel and he that is particularly meant by that name should be free from it As if a Prince should charge the Maior of a Corporation as guilty of rebellion and by it should only mean that the Corporation was guilty but the Maior was innocent himself Secondly If mady things in the Epistles be directed to the Angel but yet so as to concern the whole body then of necessity the Angel must be taken as Representative of the Body and then why may not the word Angel be taken only by way of representation of the body its self either of the whole Church or which is far more probable of the Consessus or Order of Presbyters in that Church We see what miserably unconcluding arguments those are which are brought for any form of Government from Metaphorical or Ambiguous expressions or names promiscuously used which may be interpreted to different senses What certainty then can any rational man find what the form of Government was in the Primitive times when onely those arguments are used which may be equally accommodated to different forms And without such a certainty with what confidence can men speak of a Divine Right of any one particular form Secondly The uncertainty of the Primitive form is argued from the places most in controversie about the form of Government because that without any apparent incongruity they may be understood of either of the different forms Which I shall make out by going through the several places The Controversie then on foot is this as it is of late stated Whether the Churches in the Primitive times were governed by a Bishop only and Deacons or by a Colledge of Presbyters acting in a parity of power The places insisted on on both sides are these Acts 11. 30. Acts 14. 23. Acts 28. 17 1 Tim. 3. 1. Titus 1. 5. The thing in controversie is Whether Bishops with Deacons or Presbyters in a parity of power are understood in these places I begin then in order with Acts 11. 30. The first place wherein the name 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 occurrs as applyed to the Officers of the Christian Church Those that are for a Colledge of Presbyters understand by these Elders those of the Church of Ierusalem who did govern the affairs of that Church those that are for a solitary Episcopacy by these Elders understand not the local Elders of Ierusalem but the several Bishops of the Churches of Iudea Let us now see whether there be any evidence from the place to determine which of these two must necessarily be understood There is nothing at all mentioned in the place but only that upon the occasion of the Famine they sent relief to the Brethren of Judea and sent it to the Elders by the hands of Barnabas and Paul Which might either be to the Elders of the Church at Ierusalem to be distributed to the several Churches of Iudea or else to the several Pastors of those Churches either collectively as met together at Ierusalem to receive this contribution or distributively as they were in their several Churches The relief might be sent to all the Brethren of Iudea and yet either be conveyed to the particular Elders of Ierusalem to send it abroad or to the several Elders of the Churches within the circuit of Iudea But other places are brought by both parties for their particular sense in this As Acts 15. 6. here indeed mention is made of the Apostles and Elders together at Ierusalem but nothing expressed whereby we may know whether the fixed Elders of that Church or else the Elders of all the Churches of Iudea assembled upon this solemn occasion of the Council of the Apostles there So Acts 21. 11. when Paul went in to Iames it is said That All the Elders were present No more certainty here neither for either they might be the fixed Officers of that Church meeting with Iames upon Pauls coming or else they might be the Elders of the several Churches of Iudea met together not to take account of Pauls Ministry as some improbably conjecture but assembled together there at the Feast of Pentecost at which Paul came to Ierusalem which is more probable upon the account of what we read v. 20. of the many thousand believing Iews then at Jerusalem who were zealous of the Law who in all probability were the believing Jews of Iudea who did yet observe the annual Festivals of Ierusalem and so most likely their several Elders might go up together with them and there be with Iames at Pauls coming in to him No certainty then of the Church of Ierusalem how that was governed whether by Apostles themselves or other unfixed Elders or onely by Iames who exercised his Apostleship most there and thence afterward◠called the Bishop of Ierusalem We proceed therefore to the government of other Churches and the next place is Acts 14. 23. And when they had ordained them Elders in every Church Here some plead for a plurality of Elders as fixed in every Church but it is most evident that the words hold true if there was but one in each Church For 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 here and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Titus 1. 5. for both places will admit of the same answer doth signifie no more then oppidatim or Ecclesiatim as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 gradatim 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 viritim 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 particulatim 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 vicatim No more then is imported than that Elders were ordained City by City or Church by Church as we would render i◠and thereby nothing is expressed but that no Church wanted an Elder but not that every Church had more Elders then one But the place most controverted is Acts 20. 17. And from Miletus Paul sent to Ephesus and called the Elders of the Church Those that say these Elders were those only of the Church of Ephesus seem to be most favoured by the article 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as seeming to apply it to that particular Church of Ephesus and by the Syriack version which renders it Venire fecit Presbyteros Ecclesiae Ephesi to the same
any particular Form of Church-Government setled in the Apostles times which can be drawn from the help of the Records of the Primitive Church which must be first cleared of all Defectiveness Ambiguity Partiality and Confusion before the thing we inquire for can be extracted out of them Having thus far shewed that we have no absolute certainty of what Form of Government was setled by the Apostles in the several Churches of their Plantation The next Consideration which follows to be spoken to is that the Apostles in probability did not observe any one fixed course of setling the Government of Churches but setled it according to the several circumstances of places and persons which they had to deal with This will be ex abundanti as to the thing by me designed which would be sufficiently cleared without this and therefore I lay it not as the Foundation of my Thesis but onely as a Doctrine of Probability which may serve to reconcile the Controversies on foot about Church-Government For if this be made appear then it may be both granted that the Apostles did settle the Government in the Church in a Colledg of Presbyters and in a Bishop and Deacons too according to the diversity of places and the variety of circumstances It is easie to observe that as to Rites and Customes in the Church the Original of most mens mistakes is Concluding that to be the general Practice of the Church which they meet with in some places whereas that is most true which Firmiliam tells us In plurimis Provinciis multa pro locorum nominum l. hominum diversitate variantur nec tamen propter hoc ab Ecclesiae Catholicae pace atque unitate discossum est Those Rites varied in divers places retaining still the Unity of the Faith so as to matter of Government mens mistakes do arise from an universal conclusion deduced out of particular premises and what they think was done in one place they conclude must be done in all Whereas these are the grounds inducing me probably to conclude that they observed not the same course in all places Which when an impartial Reader hath soberly considered with what hath gone before I am in hopes the Novelty of this Opinion may not prejudicate its entertainment with him My grounds are these First From the different state condition and quantity of the Churches planted by the Apostles Secondly From the multitude of unfixed Officers in the Church then which acted with authority over the Church where they were resident Thirdly from the different customes observed in several Churches as to their Government after the Apostles decease I begin with the first The different State Condition and Quantity of the Churches planted by the Apostles For which we are to consider these things First That God did not give the Apostles alike success of their labours in all places Secondly That a small number of believers did not require the same number which a great Church did to teach and govern them Thirdly That the Apostles did settle Church-Officers according to the probability of increase of believers and in order thereto in some great places First That God did not give the Apostles equal success to their labours in all places After God called them to be Fishers of men it was not every draught which filled their Net with whole shoals of Fishes sometimes they might toyle all Night still and catch nothing or very little It was not every Sermon of Peters which converted three thousand the whole world might at that rate soon have become Christian although there had been but few Preachers besides the Apostles God gave them strange success at first to encourage them the better to meet with difficulties afterwards In 〈…〉 es God told them he had much people in others we read but of few that believed At Corinth Paul Plants and Apollos Waters and God gives an abundant increase but at Athens where if moral dispositions had fitted men for Grace and the improvements of Nature we might have expected the greatest number of Converts yet here we read of many mocking and others delaying and but of very few believing Dionysius and Damaris and some others with them The Plantations of the Apostles were very different not from the Nature of the soile they had to deal with but from the different influence of the Divine Spirit upon their Endeavours in severall places We cannot think that the Church at Cenchrea for so it is called was as well stockt with Believers as that at Corinth Nay the Churches generally in the Apostles times were not so filled with Numbers as men are apt to imagine them to be I can as soon hope to find in Apostolical times Diocesan Churches as Classical and Provincial yet this doth not much advantage the Principles of the Congregational men as I have already demonstrated Yet I do not think that all Churches in the Apostles times were but one Congregation but as there was in Cities many Synagogues so there might be many Churches out of those Synagogues enjoying their former liberties and priviledges And they that will shew me where five thousand Jewes and more did ordinarily meet in one of their Synagogues for publike worship may gain something upon me in order to believing the Church of Ierusalem to be but one Congregation and yet not perswade me till they have made it appear that the Christians then had as publike solemn set meetings as the Jews had which he that understands the state of the Churches at that time will hardly yield to the belief of I confess I cannot see any rule in Scripture laid down for distributing Congregations but this necessity would put them upon and therefore it were needless to prescribe them and very little if any reason can I see on the other side why where there were so much people as to make distinct Congregations they must make distinct Churches from one another but of that largely in the next chapter All Churches then we see were not of an equal extent The second premisal Reason will grant viz. that a small Church did not require the same number of Officers to rule it which a great one did For the duty of Officers lying in Reference to the People where the People was but few one constant setled Officer with Deacons under him might with as much ease discharge the work as in a numerous Church the joynt help of many Officers was necessary to carry it on The same reason which tells us that a large flock of Sheep consisting of many thousands doth call for many Shepherds to attend them doth likewise tell us that a small flock may be governed with the care of one single Shepherd watching continually over them The third premisall was that in great Cities the Apostles did not onely respect the present guidance of those that were converted but established such as might be useful for the converting and bringing in of others to the Faith who were
as yet strangers to the Covenant of promise and aliens from the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 society of Christians And here I conceive a mistake of some men lies when they think the Apostles respected onely the Ruling of those which were already converted for though this were one part of their work yet they had an eye to the main Design then on foot the subjecting the World to the Obedience of Faith in order to which it was necessity in places of great resort and extent to place not onely such as might be sufficient to superintend the Affairs of the Church but such as might lay out themselves the most in Preaching the Gospel in order to converting others Haveing laid down these things by way of premisal we will see what advantage we can make of them in order to our purpose First then I say that in Churches consisting of a small number of Believers where there was no great probability of a large increase afterwards One single Pastour With Deacons under him were onely constituted by the Apostles for the ruling of those Churches Where the work was not so great but a Pastour and Deacons might do it what need was there of having more and in the great scarcity of fit Persons for setled Rulers then and the great multitude and necessity of unfixed Officers for preaching the Gospel abroad many persons fit for that work could not be spared to be constantly Resident upon a place Now that in some places at first there were none placed but onely a Pastour and Deacons I shall confirm by these following Testimonies The first is that of Clement in his Epistle 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Apostles therefore preaching abroad through Countreys and Cities ordained the First-fruits of such as believed having proved them by the Spirit to be Bishops and Deacons for them that should afterwards believe Whether by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 we understand Villages or Regions is not material for it is certain here the Author takes it as distinct from Cities and there is nothing I grant expressed where the Apostles did place Bishops and Deacons exclusive of other places i. e. whether onely in Cities or Countreys but it is evident by this that where-ever they planted Churches they ordained Bishops and Deacons whether those Churches were in the City or Countrey And here we find no other Officers setled in those Churches but Bishops and Deacons And that there were no more in those Churches then he speaks of appears from his Designe of paralleling the Church-Officers in the Gospel to those under the Law and therefore it was here necessary to enumerate all that were then in the Churches The main controversie is what these Bishops were whether many in one place or onely one and if but one whether a Bishop in the modern Sense or no. For the first here is nothing implying any necessity of having more then one in a place which will further be made appear by and by out of other Testimonies which will help to explain this As for the other thing we must distinguish of the Notion of a Bishop For he is either such a one as hath none over him in the Church or he is such a one as hath a power over Presbyters acting under him and by authority derived from him If we take it in the first Sense so every Pastor of a Church having none exercising jurisdiction over him is a Bishop and so every such single Pastor in the Churches of the Primitive times was a Bishop in this Sense as every Master of a Family before Societies for Government were introduced might be called a King because he had none above him to command him but if we take a Bishop in the more proper Sense for one that hath power over Presbyters and People such a one these single Pastors were not could not be For it is supposed that these were onely single Pastors But then it is said that after other Presbyters were appointed then these single Pastors were properly Bishops but to that I answer First they could not be proper Bishops by vertue of their first Constitution for then they had no power over any Presbyters but onely over the Deacons and People and therefore it would be well worth considering how a power of jurisdiction over Presbyters can be derived from those single Pastors of Churches that had no Presbyters joyned with them It must be then clearly and evidently proved that it was the Apostles intention that these single Pastors should have the power over Presbyters when the Churches necessity did require their help which intention must be manifested and declared by some manifestation of it as a Law of Christ or nothing can thence be deduced of perpetual concernment to the Church of Christ. Secondly either they were Bishops before or onely after the appointment of Presbyters if before then a Bishop and a Presbyter having no Bishop over him are all one if after onely then it was by his communicating power to Presbyters to be such or their choice which made him their Bishop if the first then Presbyters quoad ordinem are onely a humane institution it being acknowledged that no Evidence can be brought from Scripture for them and for any Act of the Apostles not recorded in Scripture for the constituting of them it must goe among unwritten Traditions and if that be a Law still binding the Church then there are such which occurre not in the Word of GOD and so that must be an imperfect coppy of Divine Lawes If he were made Bishop by an Act of the Presbyters then Presbyters have power to make a Bishop and so Episcopacy is an humane institution depending upon the voluntary Act of Presbyters But the clearest Evidence for one single Pastour with Deacons in some Churches at the beginning of Christianity is that of Epiphanius which though somewhat large I shall recite because if I mistake not the curtailing of this Testimony hath made it speak otherwise then ever Epiphanius meant 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. The Sense of Epiphanius is very intricate and obscure we â—hall endeavour to explain it He is giving Aerius an account why Paul in his Epistle to Timothy mentions onely Bishops and Deacons and passeth over Presbyters His account is this first he chaâ—geth Aerius with ignorance of the Series of History which he calls 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and the profound and ancient Records the Church wherein it is expressed that upon the first Preaching of the Gospel the Apostle writ according to the present state of things Where Bishops were not yet appointed for so certainly it should be read 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for then he must contradict himself the Apostle writes to Bishops and Deacons for the Apostles could not settle all things at first for there was a necessity of Presbyters and Deacons for by these two Orders all Ecclesiastical Offices might be performed for where so I read it 〈◊〉
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as the Sense clearly carries it there was not found any worthy of being a Bishop the place remained without one But where necessity required one and there were some found fit for that Office there some were ordained Bishops but for want of convenient number there could be no Presbyters found out to be Ordained and in such places they were contented with the Bishop and Deacons for without their Ministry the Bishop could not be So that according to Epiphanius there were three several states of Churches in the Apostles times first some Churches where there were onely Presbyters and Deacons without a Bishop For if Epiphanius speaks not at first of places where Presbyters were without a Bishop he must be guilty of a vain and empty Tautology for he after tells us where the necessity of the Church required it a Bishop was made therefore before he speaks of places only where Presbyters and Deacons were and otherwise he would not answer Aerius about 1 Tim. 4. 14. which it is his design to do about The laying on of the hands of the Presbyterie He grants then that at first in some places there were only Presbyters and Deacons as when the Apostle writes to Bishops and Deacons where Bishops at that time of the Church were only Presbyters of which two orders Presbyters and Deacons there was an absolute necessity and the account he gives why they setled no higher order above them is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Apostles could not settle all things at first which words are to be read with a Parenthesis giving an account why sometimes only Bishops and Deacons were setled that is Presbyters so called But saith he where necessity called for a higher order of Bishops above Presbyters and any were found qualified for it there such were appointed and if by reason of the want of persons of sufficient abilities to be made Presbyters in those places there they were contented with such a superior Bishop and Deacons assisting of him Some Churches then according to his judgement had a company of Presbyters to rule them being assisted with Deacons others had only a single Bishop with Deacons and after when the numbers were increased and persons qualified were found there were both Bishops Presbyters and Deacons For the account which he gives of the former want of some Officers in some Churches is this 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Read 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as the learned Dr. well corrects it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 For the Church not yet having all her offices filled things were fain to remain in that state For nothing can be compleated at first but in process of time every thing receives its due perfection So that Epiphanius doth not as it is thought by some say that in the first times of the Church there were none but Bishops and Deacons in all Churches but in some Churches there were Presbyters and Deacons in others Bishops and Deacons according to the state condition and necessity of the Churches Epiphanius then fully and clearly expresseth my opinion in reference to the Apostles not observing any one constant course in all Churches but setling sometimes many Presbyters with Deacons sometimes only one Pastor who is therefore called a Bishop with Deacons and so setling Officers according to the particular occasions of every Church The next considerable testimony to our purpose is that of Clemens Alexandrinus in Eusebius concerning St. Iohn after his return out of the â—sle of Patmos to Ephesus upon the death of Domitian 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 He went abroad upon invitation into the neighbour-provinces in some places constituting Bishops in some setting in order whole Churches in others choosing out one from among the rest of those who were designed by the spirit of God whom he set over the Church So Salmasius contends it must be translated 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 choosing one into the Clergy for those who were chosen Bishops are sald 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and they that choose are said 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Whence Salmasius gathers out of these words the very thing I am now upon In majoribus urbibus plures in minoribus pauciores Presbyteros ordinari solitos probabile est In pagis autem aut vicis vel pusillis oppidis quales 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 vel 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 vocabant Graeci unum aliquem Presbyterum per illa praecipuè tempora quibus non magnus erat numerus sidelium suffecisse verisimile est That the Apostles set a greater number of Presbyters in great Cities fewer in less and in small Villages but one when the number of Believers was but small We have yet one Author more who speaks fully to our purpose It is the author of the Commentaries under Ambrose his name who frequently asserts-this opinion I am now making good Upon the fourth of Ephesians he largely discourseth how things were setled at first by the Apostles by degrees in the Church of God evidently shewing that the Apostles did not at first observe any setled constant course but acted according to present conveniency as they saw good in order to the promoting and advancing the Churches Interest Post quam omnibus locis Ecclesiae sunt constitutae officia ordinata aliter composita res est quam coeperat Thereby declaring his opinion that while Churches were constituting no certain course was observed For as he goes on Primum enim omnes docebant omnes baptizabant quibuscunque diebus vel temporibus fuisset occasio c. Ut ergo cresceret plebs multiplicaretur Omnibus inter initia concessum est Evangelizare baptizare scripturas in Ecclesia explanare At ubi omnia loca circumplexa est Ecclesia conventicula constituta sunt rectores caetera officia in Ecclesiis sunt ordinata ut nullus de Clero auderet qui ordinatus non esset prasumere ossicium quod sciret non sibi creditum vel concessum coepit alio ordine providentiâ gubernari Ecclesia quia si omnes eadem possent irrationabile esset vulgaris res vilissima videretur c. Ideò non per omnia conveniunt scripta Apostoli ordinationi quae nunc est in Ecclesia quia haec inter primordia sunt scripta Nam Timotheum Presbyterum à se creatum Episcopum vocat quia primum Presbyteri Episcopi appellabantur ut recedente uno sequens ei succederet c. At first he saith All Church-Offices lay open to all persons and every one did preach and baptize upon all occasions but afterwards when Congregations were established and Churches setled then none undertook that office but those that were ordained to it Thence it is that the Apostles Writings are not suitable to the present state of the Church because they were penned in the time when things were not fully setled For he calls Timothy who was made a Presbyter by him Bishop
for so at first the Presbyters were called among whom this was the course of governing Churches that as one withdrew another took his place This opinion of his he takes occasion to speak of in several other places Upon Rom. 16. Adhuc rectores Ecclesiae paucis erant in locis Governours of Churches were as yet set up but in few places And upon 1 Cor. 1. Propterea Ecclesiae scribit quia adhuc singulis Ecclesiis rectores non erant instituti And on 1 Cor. 11. Convenientibus Presbyteris quia adhâ—o rectores Ecclesiis non omnibus locis erant constituti By all which it is most evident that this both learned and antient Author cited with no small respect by St. Austin doth not conceive that the Apostle did observe any setled form in the governing of Churches but actâ—d according to principles of prudence according to the necessities and occasions of the several Churches by them planted So that where there were small Churches one Pastor with Deacons might suffice in greater Churches some were governed by Presbyters acting in common Council others though very few at first had Rectors placed over them for superintending the affairs of the Church Secondly In Churches consisting of a multitude of believers or where there was a probability of great increase by preaching the Gospel the Apostles did settle a Colledge of Presbyters whose office was partly to govern the Church already formed and partly to labour in the Converting more So that in all great Cities where either the work was already great by the number of believers in order to the discharging of Pastoral duties to them or where it was great in reference to the number they laboured in converting of it seems most consonant to reason and Scripture that the work should be carried on by the joint assistance of many associated in the same work For is it any ways probable that the Apostles should ordain Bishops 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as Clemens speaks of such as should believe and not ordain persons in order to the making them believe They have either a very low opinion of the work of a Gospel-Bishop or very little consideration of the zeal activity and diligence which was then used in preaching reproving exhorting in season out of season that think one single person was able to undergo it all Discipline was a great deal more strict theâ— Preaching more diligent men more apprehensive of the weight of their function than for any to undertake such a care and charge of souls that it was impossible for them ever to know observe or watch over so as to give an account for them Besides while we suppose this one person imployed in the duties of his flock what leisure or time could such a one have to preach to the Gentiles and unbelieving Jews in order to their Conversion The Apostles did not certainly aym at the setting up the honour of any one person making the Office of the Church a matter of State and Dignity more then employment but they chose men for their activity in preaching the Gospel and for their usefulness in labouring to add continually to the Church Men that were imployed in the Church then did not consult for their â—ase or honour and thought it not enough for them to sit still and bâ—d others work but they were of Pauls mind Necessity was laid upon them yea Woe was unto them if they preached not the Gospel Publick prayers were not then looked on as the more principal end of Christian assemblies then preaching nor consequenâ—ly that it was the more principal office of the Stewardâ— of the Mysteries of God to read the publick prayers of the Church then to preach in season and out of season And is it not great pitty two such excellent and necessary duties should ever be set at variance much less one so preferred before the other that the one must be esteemed as Sarah and the other almost undergo the hardship of Hagar to be looked on as the Bond-woman of the Synagogue and be turned out of doors Praying and preaching are the Iackin and Boaz of the Temple like Rachel and Leah both which built up the house of Israel but though Rachel be fair and beautifull yet Leah is the more fruitful though prayer be lovely and amiable in the sight of God when it comes from a heart seriously affected with what it speaks yet preaching tends more to the turning mens souls from sin unto God Were the Apostles commissioned by Christ to go pray or preach and what is it wherein the Ministers of the Gospel succeed the Apostles Is it in the office of Praying or preaching Was Paul sent not to baptize but to preach the Gospel and shall we think those who succeed Paul in his office of preaching are to look upon any thing else as more their work then that Are Ministers in their ordination sent forth to be readers of publick Prayers or to be Dispensers of Gods holy Word Are they ordained wholly to this and shall this be the lesse principal part of their work I but the reason is unanswerable that praying is the more principal end of Christian-assemblies then preaching For the one is the End and the other the Means If by End be meant the ultimate end of all Christian duties that cannot be Prayer for that is a means it self in order to that but the chief end is the fitting souls for eternal prayses if then this unanswerable reason hold good the principal end of Christian assemblies must be only prayses of God and not prayers If by the End be meant the immediate end of preaching as that it referrs to that cannot be for the immediate end of preaching if the Apostle may be judge is instruction and edification in the faith Rather preaching is the end of praying in as much as the blessings conveyed by preaching are the things which men pray for But this is but one of those unhappy consequences which follows mens judging of the service of God rather by the practices of the Church when it came to enjoy ease and plenty than by the wayes and practices of the first and purest Apostolical times when the Apostles who were best able to judge of their own duty looked upon themselves as most concerned in the preaching of the Gospel But to this it is commonly said that there was great reason for it then because the world was to be converted to Christianity and therefore preaching was the more necessary work at that time but when a Nation is converted to the faith that necessity ceaseth It is granted that the preaching of the Gospel in regard of its universal extent was more necessary then which was the foundation of Christs instituting the Apostolical Office with an unlimited commission but if we take Preaching as referring to particular Congregations there is the same necessity now that there was then People need as much instruction as ever and so much the more in that they are
apt to think now the name of Christians will carry them to Heaven It is a too common and very dangerous deceit of men to look upon Religion more as a profession then matter of Life more as a Notion then an inward temper Men must be beat off from more things which they are apt to trust to for salvation now than in those times Men could not think so much then that diligence in publike assemblies and attendance at publick prayers was the main Religion Few would profess Christianity in those times but such as were resolved before hand rather to let go their lives then their profession but the more profess it now without understanding the terms of salvation by it the greater necessity of preaching to instruct men in it But I think more need not be said of this to those that know it is another thing to be a Christian then to be called so But however it is granted that in the Apostles times preaching was the great Work and if so how can we think one single person in a great City was sufficient both to preach to and rule the Church and to preach abroad in order to the conversion of more from their Gentilisme to Christianity Especially if the Church of every City was so large as some would make it viz. to comprehend all the Believers under the civil jurisdâ—ction of the City and so both City and Countrey the only charge of one single Bishop I think the vastness of the work and the impossibility of a right discharge of it by one single person may be argument enough to make us interpret the places of Scripture which may be understood in that sense as of more then one Pastour in every City as when the Apostles are said to ordain Elders in every City and Pauls calling for the Elders from Ephesus and his writing to the Bishops and Deacons of the Church of Philippi this consideration I say granting that the Texts may be otherwise understood will be enough to incline men to think that in greater Cities there was a society of Presbyters acting together for the carrying on the work of the Gospel in converting some to and building up of others in the faith of Christ. And it seems not in the least manner probable to me that the care of those great Churches should at first be intrusted in the hands of one single Pastour and Deacon and afterwards a new order of Presbyters erected under them without any order or rule laid down in Scripture for it or any mention in Ecclesiastical Writers of any such after institution But instead of that in the most populous Churches we have many remaining footsteps of such a Colledge of Presbyters there established in Apostolical times Thence Ignatius says The Presbyters are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Sanhedrin of the Church appointed by God and the Bench of Apostles sitting together for ruling the affairs of the Church And Origen calls it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a Colledge in every City of Gods appointing and Victor Bishop of Rome Colligium nostrum and Collegium fratrum Pius Pauperem Senatum Christi apud Romam constitutum Tertullian Probatos seniores Cyprian Cleri nostri sacrum venerandumque Concessum and to Cornelius Bishop of Rome and his Clergy Florentissimo Clero tecum praesidenti Ierome Senatum nostrum coetum Presbyterorum commune Concilium Presbyterorum quo Ecclesiae gubernabantur Hilary Seniores sinâ— quorum consilio nihil agebatur in Ecclesia the author de 7 Ordinibus ad Rustiâ—um calls the Presbytâ—â—s negotiorum judices Enâ—ychius tells us there were twelve Presbyters at Alexandria to govern the Church and the author of the Iâ—inerary of Peter of as many constituted at Caesaria who though counterfeit must be allowed to speak though not verâ— yet verisimilia though not true yet likely things Is iâ— possible all these authors should thus speak of their several places of a Colledge of Presbyters acting in power with the Bishop if at first Churches were governed only by a single Bishop and afterwards by subject Presbyters that had nothing to do in the rule of the Church but were only deputed to some particular offices under him which they were impowered to do only by his authority But the joint-rule of Bishop and Presbyters in the Churches will be more largely deduced afterwards Thus we see a Company of Presbyters setled in great Churches now we are not to imagine that all these did equally attend to one part of their woâ—k but all of them according to their several abilities laid out themselves some in â—verseeing and guiding the Church but yet so as upon occasion to discharge all pastoral acts belonging to their function others betook themselves chiefly to the conversion of others to the faith either in the Cities or the adjacent countryes By which we come to a full clear and easie understanding of that so much controverted place 1 Tim. 5. 17. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Elders that rule well are counted worthy of double honour especially they that labour in the Word and Doctrine Not as though it implyed a distâ—â—ct sort of Elders from the Pastors of Churches but among those Elders that were ordained in the great Churches some attended most to ruling the flock already converted others laboured most in converting others to the Faith by preaching though both these being entred into this peculiar function of laying themselves forth for the benefit of the Church did deserve both respect and maintenance yet especially those who imployed themselves in converting others in as much as their burden was greater their labours more abundant their sufferings more and their very Office coming the nearest to the Apostolical function So Chrysostome resolves it upon the fourth of the Ephesians that those who were 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as Theodoret expresseth it the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the fixed Officers of particular Churches were inferiour to those who went abroad preaching the Gospel 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 saith he 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 An evident argument that the Apostle doth not intend any sort of Elders dictinct from these ordained Presbyters of the Cities is from that very argument which the greatest friends to Lay-Elders draw out of this Epistle which is from the promiscuous acception of the words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in this very Epistle to Timothy The argument runs thus The Presbyters spoken of by Paul in his Epistle to Timothy are Scripture-Bishops but Lay-Elders are not Scripture-Bishops therefore these cannot here be meant The major is their own from 1 Tim. 3. 1. compared with 4. 14. Those which are called Presbyters in one place are Bishops in another and the main force of the argument lies in the promiscuous use of Bishop and Presbyter now then if Lay-Elders be not such Bishops then they are not Pauls Presbyters now Pauls Bishops must be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 fit to teach and therefore no
esse Episcoporum gubernationes In Africk if we look but into the writings of Augustine we may find hundreds of Bishops resorting to one Council In Ireland alone Saint Patrick is said by Ninius at the first Plantation of Christianity to have founded 365. Bishopricks So Sozomen teâ—ls us that among the Arabians and Cyprians Novatians Montanists 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the very Villages had Bishops among them The next evidence that the Church did not look upon it self as by a Divine Law to observe any one model of Government is the conforming the Ecclesiasticall Government to the Civil For if the Obligation arose from a Law of GOD that must not be altered according to civil coâ—stitutions which are variable according to the different state and conditions of things If then the Apostles did settle things by a standing Law in their own times how comes the model of Church-Government to alter with the civil Form Now that the Church did generally follow the civil Government is freely acknowledged and insisted on by Learned Persons of all sides especially after the division of the Roman Empire by Constantine the Great The full making out of which is a work too large to be here undertaken and hath been done to very good purpose already by Berterius Salmasius Gothofred Blondel and others in their Learned discourses of the suburbicarian Provinces Which whether by them we understand that which did correspond to the Praefecture of the Provost of Rome which was within a hundred miles compass of the City of Rome or that which answered to the Vicarius Urbis whose jurisdiction was over the ten Provinces distinct from Italy properly so called whose Metropolis was Milan or which is most probable the Metropolitan Province answering to the jurisdiction of the Praefectus Urbis and the Patriarchate of the Roman Bishop to the Vicarius Urbis which way soever we take it we see it answered to the Civil Government I shall not here enter that debate but onely briefly at present set down the Scheme of both Civil and Ecclesiastical Government as it is represented by our Learned Breerwood The whole Empire of Rome was divided into XIII Dioceses whereof â—even belonged to the East Empire and six beside the Praefecture of the City of Rome to the West Those thirteen Dioceses together with that Praefecture contained among them 120. Provinces or thereabout so that to every Diocess belonged the administration of sundry Provinces Lastly every Province contained many Cities within their Territories The Cities had for their Rulers those inferiour Judges which in the Law are called Defensores Civitatum and their seats were the Cities themselves to which all the Towns and Villages in their several Territories were to resort for Justice The Provinces had for theirs either Proconsuls or Consulares or Praesides or Correctores four sundry appellations but almost all of equal authority and their Seats were the chiefest Cities or Metropoles of the Provinces of which in every Province there was one to which all inferiour Cities for Judgement in matters of importance did resort Lastly the Dioceses had for theirs the Lieutenants called Vicarii and their Seats were the Metropoles or Principal Cities of the Diocess whence the Edicts of the Emperour or other Lawes were publâ—shed and sent abroad into all the Provinces of the Diocess and where the Praetorium and chief Tribunal for Judgement was placed to deâ—ermiue Appeals and minister Justice as might be occasion to all the Provinces belonging to that Jurisdiction And this was the Disposition of the Roman Governour And truly it is wonderful saith that Learâ—ed Authour how nearly and exactly the Church in her Government did imitate this Civil Ordination of the Roman Magistrates For first in every City as there was a Defensor Civitatis for secular Government so was there placed a Bishop for Spiritual Regiment in every City of the East and in every City of the West almost a several Bishop whose Jurisdiction extended but to the City and the places within the Territory For which cause the Jurisdiction of a Bishop was anciently called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifying not as many ignorant Novelists think a Parish as now the word is taken that is the places or habitations near a Church but the Towns and Villages near a City all which together with the City the Bishop had in charge Secondly in every Province as there was a President so there was an Arch-Bishop and because his Seat was the principal City of the Province he was commonly known by the name of Metropolitan Lastly in every Diocess as there was a Lievtenant-General so was there a Primate seated also in the principal City of the Diocess as the Lieutenant was to whom the last determining of Appeals from all the Provinces in differences of the Clergy and the soveraign care of all the Diocess for sundry points of Spiritual Government did belong By this you may see that there were XI Primates besides the three Patriarchs for of the XIII Dioceses besides the Praefecture of the City of Rome which was administred by the Patriarch of Rome that of Egypt was governed by the Patriarch of Alexandria and that of the Orient by the Patriarch of Antiochia and all the rest by the Primates between whom and the Patriarchs was no difference of Jurisdiction and power but onely of some Honour which accrued to them by the Dignity of their Sees as is clearly expressed in the third Canon of the Council of Constantinople 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 whereby Constantinople is advanded to the honorary Title of a Patriarch next to Rome because it was New Rome Whereby it is evident that the Honour belonging to the Bishop of old Rome did arise from its being the Imperial City The Honour of the Bishop rising as Austin saith that of the Deacons of Rome did propter magnificentiam urbis Romanae quae caput esse videour omnium civitatum Hereby we now fully see what the Original was of the power of Arch-Bishops Metropolitans and Patriarchs in the Church viz. the contemperating the Ecclesiastical-Government to the civil The next Evidence that the Church did not look upon its self as bound by a Divine Law to a certain Form of Government but did order things itself in order to Peace and Unity is that after Episcopal Government was setled in the Church yet Ordination by Presbyters was looked on as valid For which these instances may suffice About the year 390. Iohannes Cassianus reports that one Abbot Daniel inâ—eriour to none of those who lived in the Desart of Scetis was made a Deacon à B. Paâ—hnutio solitudinis ejusdem Presbytero In tantum enim virtutibus ipsius adgaudebat ut quem vitae meritis sibi gratiâ parem noverat coaequare sibi etiam Sacerdotti Honore festinaret Siquidem nequaquam ferens in inferiore eum ministerio diutius immorari optansque sibiâ—et successâ—rem dignissimum providere superstes eum
ad ordinem ad decorum ad aedificationem Ecclesiae pro co tempore pertinentibus And in the next Section Novimus enim Deum nostrum Deum esse Ordinis non confusionis Ecclesiam servari ordine perdi autem 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 qua de causa multos etiam diversos non solum olim in Israele verum etiam post in Ecclesia ex Iudaeis Gentibus collecta ministrorum ordines instituit eandem etiam ob causam liberum reliquit Ecclesiis ut plures adderent vel non adderent modo ad aedificationem fieret He asserts it to be in the Churches power and liberty to add several orders of Ministers according as it judgeth them tend to edification and saith he is far from condemning the Course of the Primitive Church in erecting one as Bishop over the Presbyters for better managing Church Affairs yea Arch-Bishops Metropolitans and Patriarchs as instituted by the Primitive Church before the Nicene Council he thinks may be both excused and defended although afterward they degenerated into Tyranny and Ambition And in his Observations upon his Confession penned chiefly upon the occasion of the exceptions of Magnus quidam Vir some will guess who that was taken at the free delivery of his mind concerning the Polity of the Primitive Church he hath expressions to this purpose That what was unanimously determined by the Primitive Church without any contradiction to Scripture did come from the Holy Spirit Hinc fit saith he ut quae sint hujuscemodi ea ego improbare nec velim nec audeam bona conscientia Quis autem ego sim qui quod tota Ecclesia approbavit improbem Such things saith he as are so determined I neither will nor can with a safe Conscience condemn For who am I that I should condemn that which the whole Church of God hath approved A Sentence as full of judgement as modesty And that he might shew he was not alone in this opinion he produceth two large and excellent Discourses of Martin Bucer concerning the Polity of the ancient Church which he recites with approbation the one out of his Commentaries on the Ephesians the other de Disciplina Clericali whereby we have gained another Testimony of that famous and peaceable Divine whose judgement is too large to be here inserted The same opinion of Zanchy may be seen in his Commentaries upon the fourth Command wherein he asserts no particular Form to be prescribed but onely general Rules laid down in Scripture that all be done to Edification speaking of the Originall of Episcopacy which came not dispositione Divina but consuetudine Ecclesiastica atque ea quidem minime improbanda neque enim hunc ordinem prohibuit Christus sed potius regulam generalem reliquit per Apostolum nt in Ecclesia omnia fiant ad edificationem It is then most clear and evident that neither Bucer Chemnitius or Zanchy did look upon the Church as so bound up by any immutable Form of Church-Government laid down in Scripture but it might lawfully and laudably alter it for better edification of the Church For these Learned Divines conceiving that at first in the Church there was no difference between Bishop and Presbyter and commending the Polity of the Church when Episcopacy was set in a higher order they must of necessity hold that there was no obligation to observe that Form which was used in Apostolical times Our next inquiry is into the opinion of the French Church and the eminent Divines therein For Calvin and Bâ—zÌ„a we have designed them under another rank At present we speak of those who in Thesi assert the Form of Church-Government mutable The first wee meet with here who fully layes down his opinion as to this matter is Ioh. Fregevil who although in his Palma Christiana he seems to assert the Divine right of Primacy in the Church yet in his Politick Reformer he asserts both Forms of Government by equality and inequality to be lawful And we shall the rather produce his Testimony because of the high Character given of him by the late Reverend Bishop Hall Wise Fregevil a deep head and one that was able to cut even betwixt the League the Church and State His words are these As for the English Government I say it is grounded upon Gods Word so far forth as it keepeth the State of the Clergy instituted in the Old Testament and confirmed in the New And concerning the Government of the French Church so far as concerneth the equality of Ministers it hath the like foundation in Gods Word namely in the example of the Apostles which may suffice to authorize both these Forms of Estate albeit in several times and places None can deny but that the Apostles among themselves were equal as concerning authority albeit there were an Order for their precedency When the Apostles first planted Churches the same being small and in affliction there were not as yet any other Bishops Priests or Deacons but themselves they were the Bishops and Deacons and together served the Tables Those men therefore whom God raiseth up to plant a Church can do no better then after the examples of the Apostles to bear themselves in equal authority For this cause have the French Ministers planters of the Reformed Church in France usurped it howbeit provisionally reserving liberty to alter it according to the occurrences But the equality that rested among the Bishops of the primitive Church did increase as the Churches increased and thence proceeded the Creation of Deacons and afterwards of other Bishops and Priests yet ceased not the Apostles equality in authority but they that were created had not like authority with the Apostles but the Apostles remained as Soveraign Bishops neither were any greater then they Hereof I do inferr that in the State of a mighty and peaceable Church as is the Church of England or as the Church of France is or such might be if God should call it to Reformation the State of the Clergy ought to be preserved For equality will be hurtful to the State and in time breed confusion But as the Apostles continued Churches in their equality so long as the Churches by them planted were small so should equality be applyed in the planting of a Church or so long as the Church continueth small or under persecution yet may it also be admitted as not repugnant to Gods Word in those places where already it is received rather then to innovate anything I say therefore that even in the Apostles times the state of the Clergy increased as the Church increased Neither was the Government under the bondage of Egypt and during the peace of the Land of Canaan alike for Israelites had first Iudges and after their state increased Kings Thus far that Politique Reformer Whose words are so full and pertinent to the scope and drift of this whole Treatise that there is no need of any Commentary to draw them to my sense The
Government All Power in Christs hands for Governing the Church What order Christ took in order thereto when he was in the World Calling the Apostles the first action respecting outward Government Three steps of the Apostles calling to be Disciples in their first mission in their plenary Commission Several things observed upon them pertinent to our purpose The Name and Office of Apostles cleared An equality among them proved during our Saviours life Peter not made Monarch of the Church by Christ. The pleas for it answered The Apostles Power over the seventy Disciples considered with the nature and quality of their Office Matth. 20. 25 26. largely discussed and explained It excludes all civil power but makes not all inequality in Church-Officers unlawful by the difference of Apostles and Pastors of Churches Matth. 18. 15 16 17. fully inquired into No evidence for any one Form from thence because equally applyed to several What the offences are there spoken of What the Church spoken to Not an Ecclesiastical Sanhedrin among the Iews nor yet the civil Sanhedrin as Erastus and his followers explain it nor a Consistorial or Congregational Church under the Gospel but onely a select company for ending private differences among Christians p. 200 CHAP. VI. THe next and chief thing pleaded for determining the Form of Church-Government is Apostolical practice two things inquired into concerning that what it was how far it binds The Apostles invested with the power and authority of governing the whole Church of Christ by their Commission Iohn 20. 21. Matth. 28. 19. What the Apostles did in order to Church-Government before Pentecost 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 explained No division of Provinces made among the Apostles then made appear by several Arguments Whether Paul and Peter were conâ—ined one to the circumcision the other to the uncircumcision and different Churches erected by them in the same Cities What course the Apostles took in setling the Government of particular Churches Largely proved that they observed the customs of the Iewish Synagogue The model of the Synagogue Government described Whether peculiar Ordination for the Synagogue Officers The service of the Synagogue set forth with the Officers belonging to it Grounds proving that the Apostles copied forth the the Synagogue modell Community of names and customs between Iews and Christians then Forming Churches out of Synagogues Whether any distinct Coetus of Jewish and Gentile Christians in the same Cities Correspondency of the Church with the Synagogue in the orders of publick Service In the custome of Ordination Ierom explained The power of Ordination in whom it lodgeth in the Christian Church The opinions of Ierom and Aerins considered The name of Presbyters and Bishops explained Three general considerations touching Apostolical practice 1. That we cannot attain to such a certainty of Apostolical practice as thereon to ground a divine right The uncertainty of Apostolical practice as to us fully discovered 1. From the equivalency of the names which should determine the controversie 2. In that the places in controversie may without incongruity be understood of the different forms 3. From the defectiveness ambiguity partiality and repugnancy of the Records of Antiquity which should inform us what the Apostolical practice was These fully discoursed upon The testimonies of Eusebius Irenaeus Tertullian Hilary Ierom and Ignatius discussed and these two last proved not to contradict each other Episcopacy owned as a humane Instituiion by the sense of the Church 2. Consideration That in all probability the Apostles did not observe any one fixed course of settling Church Government but settled it according to the several circumstances of time places and persons Several things premised for clearing it This Opinion though seemingly New is proved at large to be most consonant to antiquity by the several Testimonies of Clemens Rom. Alexandrinus Epiphanius whose Testimony is corrected explained and vindicated Hilary and divers others This Opinion of great consequence towards our present peace No foundation for Lay-Elders either in Scripture or Antiquity 3. Consideration Meer Apostoliâ—al practice if supposed founds not any divine right proved by a fourfold Argument The right of Tithes resolved upon the same Principles with that of Church Government Rites and Institutions Apostolical grown quite out of use among the several contending parties p. 230. CHAP. VII THE Churches Polity in the ages after the Apostles considered Evidences thence that no certain unalterable Form of Church-Government was delivered to them 1. Because Church Power did inlarge as the Churches did Whether any Metropolitan Churches established by the Apostles Seven Churches of Asia whether Metropolitical Philippi no Metropolis either in Civil or Ecclesiastical sense Several degrees of inlargement of Churches Churches first the Christians in whole Cities proved by several arguments the Eulogiae an evidence of it Churches extended into the neighbour territories by the preaching there of City Presbyters thence comes the subordination between them Churches by degrees inlarged to Diocesses from thence to Provinces The Original of Metropolitans and Patriarches 2. No certain Form used in all Churches Some Churches without Bishops Scots Goths Some with but one Bishop in their whole Countrey Scythian Aethiopian Churches how governed Many Cities without Bishops Diocesses much altered Bishops discontinued in several Churches for many years 3. Conforming Ecclesiastical Government to the civil in the extent of Diocesses The suburbicarian Churches what Bishops answerable to the civil Governours Churches power rises from the greatness of Cities 4. Validity of Ordination by Presbyters in places where Bishops were The case of Ischyras discussed instances given of Ordination by Presbyters not pronounced null 5. The Churches prudence in managing its affairs by the several Canons Provincial Synods Codex Canonum p. 346 CHAP. VIII AN Inquiry into the Iudgement of Reformed Divines concerning the unalterable Divine Right of particular Forms of Church-Government wherein it is made appear that the most emine nt Divines of the Reformation did never conceive any one Form necessary manifested by three arguments 1. From the judgment of those who make the Form of Church-Government mutable and to depend upon the wisdom of the Magistrate and Church This cleared to have been the judgement of most Divines of the Church of England since the Reformation Archbishop Cranmers judgements with others of the Reformation in Edward the Sixth time now first published from his authentick MS. The same ground of setling Episcopacy in Queen Elizabeth's time The judgement of Archbishop Whitgift Bishop Bridges Dr. Loe Mr. Hooker largely to that purpose in King Iames his time The Kings own Opinion Dr. Sutâ—â—ffe Since of Grakanthorp Mr. Hales Mr. Chillingworth The Testimony of Forraign Divines to the same purpose Chemnitius Zanchy French Divines Peter Moulin Fregevil Blondel Bochartus Amyraldus Other learned men Grotius Lord Bacon c. 2. Those who look upon equality as the Primitive Form yet judge Episcopacy lawful Augâ—stane Confession Melanchthon Articuli Smalcaldici Prince of Anhalt Hyperius Hemingiâ—s The practice of most
liberty of the Gospel-state above the Jewish The Law was onely as a Paedagogy the Church then in her Infancy and Nonage and therefore wanted the Fescues of Ceremonies to direct her and every part of her lesson set her to bring her by degrees to skill and exactness in her Understanding the mystery of the things represented to her But must the Church now grown up under Christ be still sub ferula and not dare to vary in any Circumstance which doth not concern the thing it self A Boy at School hath his Lesson set him and the manner of learning it prescribed him in every mode and circumstance But at the University hath his Lectures read him and his work set and general Directions given but he is left to his own liberty how to perform his work and what manner to use in the doing of it So it was with the Church under age Every mode and circumstance was Determined but when the fulnesse of Time was come the Church then being grown up the main Offices themselves were appointed and generall Directions given but a liberty left how to apply and make use of them as to every particular case and occasion Things Morall remain still in their full force but circumstantials are left more at liberty by the Gospel-liberty as a Son that is taught by his Father while he is under his instruction must observe every particular direction for him in his Learning but when he comes to age though he observes not those things as formerly yet his Son ship continues and he must obey his Father as a Childe still though not in the same manner The similitude is the Apostles Galat. 4. 1 2 3 4 5. 10. which he there largely amplifies to this very purpose of freeing Christians from Judaical ceremonies 2. The Form of Government among the Jewes in the tribe of Levi was agreeable to the Form of Government among the other Tribes and so Moses was not more exact in Reference to that then to any other and those persons in that Tribe who were the chief before the Institution of the Aâ—ronicall Priest-hood were so after but now under the Gospel people are not under the same Restrictions for civil Government by a Judicial Law as they were then For the Form of Ecclesiastical Government then took place among them as one of their Judicial Laws And therefore if the Argument hold Christ must as well Prescribe a Form for civil Government as Ecclesiastical if Christ in the Gospel must by his Faithfulnesse follow the Pattern of Moses But if Christ be not bound to follow Moses Pattern as to Judicial Law for his Church and People neither is he as to a Form of Ecclesiastical Government because that was a part of their Civil and Judicial Law 3. The people of the Jewes was a whole and entire people subsisting by themselves when one set Form of Government was prescribed them but it is otherwise now under the Gospel The Church of Christ was but Forming in Christs own time nor the Apostles in whose time we reade of but some Cities and no whole Nations converted to the Faith and therefore the same Form of Government would not serve a Church in its first constitution which is necessary for it when it is actually formed A Pastour and Deacons might serve the Church of a City while believers were few but cannot when they are increased into many Congregations And so proportionably when the Church is enlarged to a whole Nation there must be another Form of Government then Therefore they who call for a National Church under the Gospel let them first shew a Nation Converted to the Faith and we will undertake to shew the other And this is the chief Reason why the Churches Polity is so little described in the New Testament because it was onely growing then and it doth not stand to Reason that the coat which was cut out for one in his Infancy must of necessity serve him when grown a man which is the argument of those who will have nothing observed in the Church but what is expressed in Scripture The Apostles looked at the present state of a Church in appointing Officers and ordered things according to the circumstances of them which was necessary to be done in the founding of a Church and the reason of Apostolical practice binds still though not the individual action that as they Regulated Churches for the best conveniency of Governing them so should the Pastours of Churches now But of this largely afterwards 4. Another difference is that the People of the Jewes lived all under one civil Government but it is otherwise with Christians who live under different Forms of civil Government And then by the same reason that in the first institution of their Ecclesiastical Government it was formed according to the civil by the same reason must Christians doe under the Gospel if the argument holds that Christ must be faithful as Moses was And then because Christians do live under several and distinct Forms of civil Government they must be bound by the Law of Christ to contemperate the Government of the Church to that of the State And what they have gained by this for their cause who assert the necessity of any one Form from this Argument I see not but on the contrary this is evident that they have evidently destroyed their own principle by it For if Moses did prescribe a Form of Government for Levi agreeable to the Form of the Common-wealth and Christ be as faithfull as Moses was then Christ must likewise order the Government of Christian Churches according to that of the State and so must have different Forms as the other hath Thus much will serve abundantly to shew the weakness of the argument drawn from the agreement of Christ and Moses for the proving any one form of Government necessary but this shall not suffice I now shall ex abundanti from the answers to this argument lay down several arguments that Christ did never intend to institute any one Form of Government in his Church 1. Whatever binds the Church of God as an institution of Christ must bind as an universal standing Law but one form of Government in the Church cannot bind it as a standing Law For whatever binds as a standing â—aw must either be expressed in direct terms as such a Law or deduced by a necessary Consequence from his Lawes as of an universally binding Nature but any one particular form of Government in the Church is neither expressed in any direct terms by Christ nor can be deduced by just Consequence therefore no such form of Government is instituted by Christ. If there be any such Law it must be produced whereby it is determined in Scripture either that there must be Superiority or Equality among Church Officers as such after the Apostles decease And though the Negative of a Fact holds not yet the Negative of a Law doth else no superstition I have not yet met with
of the Governours acting in it but that care which Paul had over all the Churches would have prompted him especially being assisted and guided by an infallible Spirit in the penning those Epistles to have laid down some certain Rules for the acting of the Pastors of the Churches after the departure of Timothy and Titus Considering especially that the Epistles then written by him were to be of standing perpetual use in the Church of God and by which the Churches in after-ages were to be guided as well as those that were then in being The Apostle in both Epistles takes care for a succession of Pastors in those Churches Timothy is charged to commit the things he had heard of Paul to faithful men who shall be fit to teach others Had it not been as requisite to have charged him to have committed his power of Government to men fit for that had the Apostles looked on the form of Government to be as necessary as the office of preaching Paul saith he left Titus in Creete on purpose to settle the Churches and ordain Presbyters in every City had it not been as necessary to have shewed in what order the Churches must be setled and what power did belong to those Presbyters and how they should act in the governing their Churches had he thought the constitution of the Churches did depend upon the form of their acting We see here then that St. Paul doth not expresse any thing necessarily inferring any one constant form to be used in the Church of God And whence can we inferr any necessity of it but from the Scriptures laying it down as a duty that such a form and no other there must be used in the Church of God For all that we can see then by Pauls direction for Church-Government when if ever this should have been expressed it was left to the Christian wisdome and prudence of the Churches of Ephesus and Creet to consult and determine in what manner the government of their Churches should be provided for upon the departure of Timothy and Titus from them But here it will be soon replyed That though nothing be expressed in Pauls Epistles to Timothy and Titus yet Pauls appointing Timothy and Titus over those Churches did determine the form of Government and they were entrusted with a power to provide for future Governours after them To this â—answer First The superiority which Timothy and Titus had over those Churches doth not prove that form of Government necessary in all Churches I dispute not whether they were Evangelists or no or acted as such in that Superiority of that afterwards it is evident they might be so there being no convincing argument to the contrary And the bare possibility of the truth of the Negative destroys the necessity of the Affirmative of a Proposition As Si posibile est hominem non esse animal then that Proposition is false Necesse est hominem esse animal For Necesse est esse and Non possibile est non esse being â—quipollents on the one side and Possibile est non esse Et non necesse est esse being â—quipollents on the other Possibile est non esse must be contradictory to Necesse est esse as Non possibile est non esse is to Non necesse est esse So that if only the possibility of their acting as Evangelists that is by an extraordinary Commission be evicted which I know none will deny the necessity of their acting as fixed Bishops is destroyed and consequently the necessity of the continuance of their office too which depends upon the former For if they acted not as Bishops nothing can be drawn from their example necessarily inforcing the continuance of the Superiority which they enjoyed But though nothing can be inferred from hence as to the necessity of that office to continue in the Church which Timothy and Titus were invested in yet from the Superiority of that power which they enjoyed over those Churches whether as Evangelists or as fixed Bishops These two things may be inferred First That the superiority of some Church-Officers over others is not contrary to the Rule of the Gospel for all parties acknowledge the superiority of their power above the Presbyters of the several Cityes only the continuance of this power â—â— disputed by many But if they had any such power at all it is enough for my present design viz. that such a superiority is not contrary to the Gospel-Rule or that the nature of the Government of the Church doth not imply a necessary equality among the Governours of it Secondly Hence I infer that it is not repugnant to the constitution of Churches in Apostolical times for men to have power over more than one particular Congregation For such a power Timothy and Titus had which had it been contrary to the nature of the regiment of Churches we should never have read of in the first planted Churches So that if those popular arguments of a necessary relation between a Pastor and particular people of personal knowledge care and inspection did destroy the lawfulnesse of extending that care and charge to many particular Congregations they would likewise overthrow the nature end and design of the office which Timothy and Titus acted in which had a relation to a multitude of particular and Congregational Churches Whether their power was extraordinary or no I now dispute not but whether such a power be repugnant to the Gospel or no which from their practice is evident that it is not But then others who would make this office necessary urge further that Timothy or Titus might ordain and appoint others to succeed them in their places and care over all those Churches under their charge To which I answer First What they might do is not the question but what they did as they might do it so they might not do it if no other evidence be brought to prove it for Quod possibile est esse possibile â—st non esse Secondly Neither what they did is the whole question but what they did with an opinion of the necessity of doing it whether they were bound to do it or no and if so whether by any Law extant in Scripture and given them by Paul in his Epistles or some private command and particular instructions when he deputed them to their several charges If the former that Law and command must be produced which will hardly be if we embrace only the received Canon of the Scripture If the latter we must then fetch some standing Rule and Law from unwritten Traditions for no other evidence can be given of the Instructions by word of mouth given by Paul to Timothy and Titus at the taking their charges upon them But yet Thirdly Were it only the matter of fact that was disputed that would hold a Controversie still viz. Whether any did succeed Timothy and Titus in their Offices but this I shall leave to its proper place to be discussed when
Evangelists and some Pastours and Teachers but it doth not thence follow that Christ hath determined whether the Power of Apostles and Evangelists should continue in his Church or no as it implied Superiority over the ordinary Pastors of the Churches nor whether the Pastors of the Church should act in an equality in their Governing Churches I grant that all Church-Government must be performed by Officers of Christs appointing but that which I say is not determined in Scripture is the way and manner whereby they shall Govern Churches in common It is yet further argued That if the Form of Church Government be not immutably determined in Scripture then it is in the Churches Power to make new Officers which Christ never made which must be a plain addition to the Lawes of Christ and must argue the Scripture of Imperfection This being one of the main Arguments I have reserved it to the place of the Triarii and shall now examine what strength there lies in it To this therefore I answer First Those Officers are onely said to be new which were never appointed by Christ and are contrary to the first appointments of Christ for the Regulating of his Church such it is granted the Church hath no power to institute but if by new Officers be meant onely such as have a charge over more then one particular congregation by the consent of the Pastours themselves then it is evident such an Office cannot be said to be new For besides the general practice of the Church of God from the first Primitive times which have all consented in the use of such Officers we finde the Foundation of this Power laid by Christ himself in the Power which the Apostles were invested in which was extended over many both Churches and Pastours But if it be said The Apostolical Power being extraordinary must cease with the persons which enjoyed it I answer First What was extraordinary did cease but all the Dispute is what was extraordinary and what not some things were ordinary in them as Preaching Baptizing Ordaining Ruling Churches some things were again extraordinary as immediate mission from Christ the main distinguishing Note of an Apostle a Power of working Miracles to confirm the Truth of what they Preached Now the Question is whether the power which they enjoyed over Presbyters and Churches be to be reckoned in the first or the second number It must therefore be proved to be extraordinary before it can be said to cease with them and that must be done by some Arguments proper to their persons for if the Arguments brought be of a common and moral Nature it will prove the Office to be so too Secondly By ceasing may be meant either ceasing as to its necessity or ceasing as to its lawfulness I say not but that the necessity of the Office as in their persons for the first Preaching and propagating the Gospel did cease with them but that after their death it became unlawful for any particular persons to take the care and charge of Diocesan Churches I deny For to make a thing unlawfull which was before lawfull there must be some expresse prohibition forbidding any further use of such a power which I suppose men will not easily produce in the Word of God I answer therefore Secondly That the extending of any Ministerial power is not the appointing of any New Office because every Minister of the Gospel hath a Relation in actu primo to the whole Church of God the restraint and inlargement of which power is subject to Positive Determinations of prudence and conveniency in actu secundo and therefore if the Church see it fit for some men to have this power enlarged for better government in some and restrained in others that inlargement is the appointing no new Office but the making use of a power already enjoyed for the benefit of the Church of God This being a Foundation tending so fully to clear the lawfulnesse of that Government in the Church which implies a superiority and subordination of the Officers of the Church to one another and the Churches using her prudence in ordering the bounds of her Officers I shall do these two things First Shew that the power of every Minister of the Gospel doth primarily and habitually respect the Church in common Secondly that the Church may in a peculiar manner single out some of its Officers for the due Administration of Ecclesiastical power First that every Minister of the Gospel hath a power respecting the Church in common This I find fully and largely proved by those who assert the equality of the power of Ministers First from Christs bestowing the several Offices of the Church for the use of the whole Church Ephesians 4. 12 13. Christ hath set Apostles c. Pastours and Teachers in his Church now this Church must needs be the catholicke visible Church because indisputably the Apostles Office did relate thereto and consequently so must that of Pastours and Teachers too Again the end of these Offices is the building up the Body of Christ which cannot otherwise be understood then of his whole Church else Christ must have as many Bodies as the Church hath partiticular congregations Which is a new way of Consubstantiation Secondly The Ministerial Office was in being before any particular congregations were gathered For Christ upon his Ascension to Glory gave these Gifts to men and the Apostles were impowered by Christ before his Ascension Either then they were no Church Officers or if they were so they could have no other Correlate but the whole body of the Church of God then lying under the power of Darkness a few persons excepted Thirdly Because the main Designe of appointing a Gospel Ministry was the conversion of Heathens and Infidels and if these be the proper Object of the Ministerial Function then the Office must have reference to the whole Church of Christ else there could be no part of that Office performed towards those who are not yet converted Fourthly Else a Minister can perform no office belonging to him as such beyond the bounds of his particular congregation and so can neither Preach nor Administer the Sacraments to any other but within the Bounds of his own particular place and people Fifthly Because Ministers by Baptizing do admit men into the catholike visible Church else a man must be baptized again every time he removes from one Church to another and none can admit beyond what their office doth extend to therefore it is evident that every particular Pastor of a Church hath a Relation to the whole Church To which purpose our former observation is of great use viz. That particular congregations are not of Gods primary intention but for mens conveniency and so consequently is the fixedness of particular Pastors to their several places for the greater conveniency of the Church every Pastor of a Church then hath a Relation to the whole Church and that which hinders him from the
exercise of this power is not any unlawfulnesse in the thing but the preserving of order and conveniency in the Church of God This being premised I say Secondly That the officers of the Church may in a peculiar manner attribute a larger and more extensive power to some particular persons for the more convenient exercise of their common power We have seen already that their power extends to the care of the Churches in common that the restraint of this power is a matter of order and decency in the Church of God Now in matters of common concernment without all question it is not unlawful when the Church judgeth it most for Edification to grant to some the executive part of that power which is Originally and Fundamentally common to them all For our better understanding of this we must consider a twofold power belonging to Church-Officers a power of Order and a power of jurisdiction for in every Presbyter there are some things inseparably joyned to his Function and belonging to every one in his personal capacity both in actu primo and in actu secundo both as to the right and power to do it and the exercise and execution of that power such are preaching the Word visiting the sick administring Sacraments c. But there are other things which every Presbyter hath an aptitude and a jus to in actu primo but the limitation and exercise of that power doth belong to the Church in common and belong not to any one personally but by a further power of choice or delegation to it such is the power of visiting Churches taking care that particular Pastors discharge their duty such is the power of ordination and Church censures and making Rules for decency in the Church this is that we call the power of jurisdiction Now this latter power though it belongs habitually and in actu primo to every Presbyter yet being about matters of publike and common concernment some further Authority in a Church constituted is necessary besides the power of order and when this power either by consent of the Pastors of the Church or by the appointment of a Christian Magistrate or both is devolved to some particular persons though quoad aptitudinem the power remain in every Presbyter yet quoad executionem it belongs to those who are so appointed And therefore Camero determins that Ordinatio non fit à pastore quatenus pastor est sed quatenus ad tempus singularem authoritatem obtinet i. e. That Ordination doth not belong to the Power of Order but to the Power of Jurisdiction and therefore is subject to Positive restraints by Prudential Determinations By this we may understand how lawfull the Exercise of an Episcopal Power may be in the Church of God supposing an equality in all Church-Officers as to the Power of Order And how incongruously they speak who supposing an equality in the Presbyters of Churches at first do cry out that the Church takes upon her the Office of Christ if she delegates any to a more peculiar Exercise of the power of Jurisdiction The last thing pleaded why an immutable Form of Church-Government must be laid down in Scripture is from the perfection and sufficiency of the Scriptures because otherwise the Scriptures would be condemned of imperfection But this will receive an easie dispatch For First The Controversie about the perfection of the Scriptures is not concerning an essential or integral Perfection but a perfection ratione finis effectuum in order to its end now the end of it is to be an adaequate Rule of Faith and Manners and sufficient to bring men to salvation which it is sufficiently acknowledged to be if all things necessary to be believed or practised be contained in the Word of God now that which we assert not to be fully laid down in Scripture is not pleaded to be any wayes necessary nor to be a matter of Faith but something left to the Churches Liberty but here it is said by some that this is adding to the Law of God which destroyes the Scriptures perfection therefore I answer Secondly Whatever is done with an Opinion of the necessity of doing it destroyes the Scriptures perfection if it be not contained in it for that were to make it an imperfect Rule and in this sense every additio perficiens is additio corrumpens because it takes away from the perfection of the Rule which it is added to and thus Popish Traditions are destructive of the Scriptures sufficiency But the doing of any thing not positively determined in Scripture not looking upon it as a thing we are bound to do from the necessity of the thing and observing the general Rules of Scripture in the doing it is far from destroying the perfection or sufficiency of the Word of God Thirdly All essentials of Church-Government are contained clearly in Scripture The essentials of Church-Government are such as are necessary to the preservation of such a Society as the Church is Now all these things have been not only granted but proved to be contained in Scripture but whatever is not so necessary in its self can only become necessary by vertue of Gods express command and what is not so commanded is accidental and circumstantial and a matter of Christian liberty and such we assert the Form of Church-Government to be It is not our work to enquire why God hath determined some things that might seem more circumstantial than this and left other things at liberty but whether God hath determined these things or no. Which determination being once cleared makes the thing so commanded necessary as to our observance of it but if no such thing be made appear the thing remains a matter of liberty and so the Scriptures perfection as to necessaries in order to Salvation is no wayes impeached by it So much now for the necessity of Christs determining the particular form of Government We now proceed to the consideration of Christs Actions whether by them the form of Church-Government is determined or no CHAP. V. Whether any of Christs Actions have determined the Form of Government All Power in Christs hands for Governing his Church What order Christ took in order thereto when he was in the World Calling Apostles the first action respecting outward Government The Name and Office of Apostles cleared An equality among them proved during our Saviours life Peter not made Monarch of the Church by Christ. The Apostles Power over the seventy Disciples considered with the nature and quality of their Office Matth. 20. 25 26 27. largely discussed and explained It makes not all inequality in Church Officers unlawful by the difference of Apostles and Pastors of Churches Matth. 18. 15. How far that determins the Form of Church-Government No evidence of any exact Order for Church-Government from thence Matth. 16. 15 16 17 18. considered how far that concerns the Government of the Church HAving considered and answered the Arguments which are brought why Christ must
But say they whatever becomes of this Order we have a strong Foundation for Saint Peters Power because Christ said he would build his Church upon him Matth. 16. 17. This were something indeed if it were proved but I fear this Rock will not hold water as it is brought by them nor Saint Peter prove to be that Rock For indeed Was the Church built upon Saint Peter then he must be the chief Foundation stone and Peter must build upon himself and not upon Christ and all the Apostles upon him and thus in exalting the Servant we depress the Master and in setting a new Foundation we take away the only Foundation Iesus Christ. If by being built upon Peter they mean no more then being built by him as the chief Instrument it is both a very incongruous Speech and implies nothing more then what was common to him and the rest of the Apostles who were all Master-builders in the Church of Christ as Paul calls himself and in that respect are set forth as the twelve Foundation stones in the walls of the New Ierusalem The Rock then spoken of by Christ in his Speech to Peter if taken Doctrinally was Saint Peters Confession as many of the Fathers interpret it if taken personally it was none other but Christ himself who used a like Speech to this when he said Destroy this Temple and in three dayes I will raise it up Which words though spoken by occasion of the material Temple as those were of Peters name yet Christ understood them of the Temple of his Body as here likewise he doth of his person But still they urge Christ put the Keyes into Saint Peters hands Matthew 16. 19. Now the power of the Keyes doth denote Regal Authority I answer First The Keyes may be given two wayes either from a Prince to a Subject or from a City to a Prince In this latter acception they denote principality in the Receiver but withall inferiority and subjection in the Given and in this sense I am so charitable as to think they will not say that Christ gave the Keyes to Peter it must be then as a Prince to a Subject and when they are so given it doth not imply an universal power in the persons to whom they are given but an investing them in that particular place he hath appointed them to the Office which the power of the Keyes implies is Ministerial and not Authoritative Delarative and not Iuridical over persons committed to their charge and not over Officers joyned inâ—equality of power with them For so were the rest of the Apostles with Peter in the same power of the Keyes Matth. 18. 18. Iohn 20. 23. This-power of the Keyes then was given to Peter in a peculiar manner but nothing peculiar to him given thereby But still there remains another Ward in Saint Peters Keyes and the last foot to the Popes Chair which is Pasce oves Feed my sheep a charge given particularly to Peter Iohn 21. 15. Thence they infer his Power over the whole Church But this foot hath neither joynts nor sinews in it and is as infirm as any of the rest sor neither did this Command rather then Commission belong onely to Peter for Christ had before given them all their general Commission As the Father hath sent me even so send I you John 20 21. whereby is implied an investing all the Apostles equally with the power and authority of Governing the Church of God although this charge be peculiarly renewed to Peter because as he had particularly faln so he should be particularly restored neither yet did we grant this doth the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 imply such a Power and authority as they plead for viz. A Supream power over the Church of God for this even by Peter himself is attributed to the fixed Presbyters of the Churches who by this argument have as much authority conveyed them as Saint Peter had 1 Pet. 5. 2. and yet should we grant this it would not infer what they desire for these sheep were not the whole Church of Christ taken absolutely but Indefinitely For all the Apostles had a command to preach to every Creature Matth. 28. 18. which was as to the words larger as to the Sense the same with that to Saint Peter here And afterwards we find Peter called the Apostle of Circumcision and the Apostles sending him to Samaria and Paul in the right hand of fellowship with Peter which had been certainly dishonourable to Peter had he been invested with such an Universal Supream Power over the Apostles and the whole Church Such pretences then as these are for such an Extravagant power in the Church of God from such miserably weak Foundations for the upholding a corrupt Interest have given the occasion to that tart Sarcasm In Papatu sub Petri nudo nomine Satan non amplius Larva But that which would seem sufficient to awaken any out of this dream of Saint Peters power over the rest of the Apostles is the frequent contendings of the twelve Apostles one among another Who should be the greatest and that even after that Christ had said Upon this Rock will I build my Church as we may see Matthew 20 24. If Christ had conferred such a power on Saint Peter what little ground had there been for the request of Iames and Iohn and would not our Saviour rather have told them the chiefest place was conserred on Peter already then have curbed their ambition in seeking who should be greatest and would have bid them be subject to Peter as their Head and Ruler We see not then the least foundation for an universal Monarchy in the Church of God and so this form of Government is not determined by any actions or commands of Christ. We come now to consider the pleas of others who joyn in renouncing any Supream power under Christ over the Church of God but differ as to the particular forms of Government in the Church those who are for an inequality usually fix on the imparity between the Apostles and the LXX Those that are for a parity upon Matth. 20. 25. and Matth. 18. 17. I shall here proceed in the former method to shew that none of those can prove the Form they contend for as only necessary nor their adversaries prove it unlawful First then for the inequality between the Apostles and the LXX Disciples by that inequality is meant either only an inequality of order or else an inequality carrying superiority and subordination It is evident that the LXX disciples were not of the same Order with the twelve Apostles whom Christ had designed for the chief Government of his Church after his Ascension and in this respect the comparison of the twelve heads of the Tribes and the seventy Elders seems parallel with the twelve Apostles and the LXX disciples but if by imparity be meant that the twelve Apostles had a superiority of power and jurisdiction over the LXX disciples
that there was a peculiar Government belonging to the Synagogue distinct from the civil Judicatures Having thus far proceeded in clearing that there was a peculiar Form of Government in the Synagogue we now inquire what that was and by what Law and Rule it was observed The Government of the Synagogue either relates to the Publick Service of God in it or the publick Rule of it as a society As for the Service of God to be performed in it as there were many parts of it so there were many Officers peculiarly appointed for it The main part of publick service lay in the Reading and Expounding the Scriptures For both the known place of Philo will give us light for understanding them 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Coming to their Holy places called Synagogues they sit down in convenient order acâ—â—â—ding to their several Forms ready to hear the young under 〈…〉 der then one taketh the Book and readeth another of those best skilled comes after and expounds it For so Grotius reads it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 out of Eusebius We see two several Offices here the one of the Reader in the Synagogue the other of him that did interpret what was read Great difference I find among Learned men about the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of the Synagogue some by him understand the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 called sometimes in Scripture 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and so make him the under Reader in the Synagogue and hence I suppose it is and not from looking to the poor which was the Office of the Parnasim that the Office of Deacons in the Primitive Church is supposed to be answerable to the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 among the Jewes for the Deacons Office in the Church was the publick Reading of the Scriptures And hence Epiphanius parallels the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 among the Jewes to the Bishop Presbyters and Deacons among the Christians But others make the Office of the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to be of a higher nature not to be taken for the Reader himself for that was no office but upon every Sabbath day seven were call'd out to do that work as Buxtorf tells us first a Priest then a Levite and after any five of the people and these had every one their set-parts in every Section to read which are still marked by the numbers in some Bibles But the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 was he that did call out every one of these in their order to read and did observe their reading whether they did it exactly or no. So Buxtorf speaking of the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Hic maximè oratione sive precibus cantu Ecclesiâ— praeibat praeerat lectioni legali docens quod quomodo legendum similibus quae ad sacra pertinebant So that according to him the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 was the Superintendent of all the publick service thence others make him parallel to him they call'd 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Angel of the Church Legatus Ecclesiae L'Empereur renders it as though the name were imposed on him as acting in the name of the Church which could only be in offering up publick prayers but he was Angelus Dei as he was inspector Ecclesiae because the Angels are supposed to be more immediately present in and Supervisors over the publick place and duties of worship see 1 Cor. 11. 10. this 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is by L'Empereur often rendred Concionator Synagogae as though it belonged to him to expound the meaning of what was read in the Synagogue but he that did that was call'd 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 from 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to enquire thence 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the enquirer or disputer of this world thence R. Moses Haddarsan but it is in vain to seek for several Offices from several Names nay it seems not evident that there was any set-Officers in the Jewish Church for expounding Scriptures in all Synagogues or at least not so fixed but that any one that enjoyed any repute for Religion or knowledge in the Law was allowed a free liberty of speaking for the instruction of the people as we see in Christ and his Apostles for the Rulers of the Synagogue sent to Paul and Barnabas after the reading of the Law that if they had any word of exhortation they should speak on From hence it is evident there were more then one who had rule over the Synagogues they being call'd Rulers here It seems very probable that in every City where there were ten wise men as there were supposed to be in every place where there was a Synagogue that they did all jointly concurr for the ruling the affairs of the Synagogue But what the distinct Offices of all these were it is hard to make out but all joyning together seem to make the Consistory or Bench as some call it which did unanimously moderate the affairs of the Synagogue whose manner of sitting in the Synagogues is thus described by Mr. Thorndike out of Maimonides whose words are these How sit the people in the Synagogue The Elders sit with their faces towards the people and their backs towards the Heâ—all the place where they lay the Copy of the Law and all the people sit rank before rank the face of every rank towards the back of the rank before it so the faces of all the people are towards the Sanctuary and towards the Elders and towards the Ark and when the Minister of the Synagogue standeth up to prayer he standeth on the ground before the Ark with his face to the Sanctuary as the rest of the people Several things are observable to our purpose in this Testimony of Maimonides First That there were so many Elders in the Synagogue as to make a Bench or Consistory and therefore had a place by themselves as the Governours of the Synagogue And the truth is after their dispersion we shall find little Government among them but what was in their Synagogues unlesse it was where they had liberty for erecting Schools of Learning Besides this Colledge of Presbyters we here see the publick Minister of the Synagogue the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. e. Episcopus congregationis the Superintendent over the Congregation whose peculiar office it was to pray for and to blesse the people We are here further to take notice of the form of their sitting in the Synagogues The Presbyters sat together upon a Bench by themselves with their faces towards the people which was in an Hemicycle the form wherein all the Courts of Judicature among them sat which is fully described by Mr. Selden and Mr. Thorndike in the places above-cited This was afterwards the form wherein the Bishops and Presbyters used to sit in the primitive Church as the last named learned Author largely observes and proves Besides this Colledge of Presbyters there seems to be one particularly
his Origines Ecclesiae Alexandrinae published in Arabick by our moâ—â— learned Selden who expresly affirms that the twelve Presbyters constituted by Mark upon the vacancy of the See did choose out of their number one to be head over the rest and the other eleven did lay their hands upon him and blessed him and made him Patriarch Neither is the authority of Eutychius so much to be sleighted in this case coming so near to Hierom as he doth who doubtless had he told us that Mark and Anianus c. did all there without any Presbyters might have had the good fortune to have been quoted with as much frequency and authority as the Anonymous Author of the martyrdome of Timothy in Photius who there unhappily follows the story of the seven sleepers or the Author of the Apostolical Constitutions whose credit is everlastingly blasted by the excellent Mr. Duille De Pseudepigraphis Apostolorum so much doth mens interestâ—tend to the inhancing or abating the esteem and credit both of the dead and the living By these we see that where no positive restraints from consent and choice for the unity and peace of the Church have restrained mens liberty as to their external exercise of the power of order or jurisdiction every one being himself advanced into the authority of a Church Governour hath an internal power of conferring the same upon persons fit for it To which purpose the laying on of the hands of the Presbytery is no wayes impertinently alledged although we suppose St. Paul to concur in the action as it is most probable he did because if the Presbytery had nothing to do in the ordination to what purpose were their hands laid upon him Was it only to be witnesses of the fact or to signifie their consent both those might have been done without their use of that ceremony which will scarce be instanced in to be done by any but such as had power to confer what was signified by that ceremony We come therefore to the second period or state of the Church when the former liberty was restrained by some act of the Church it self for preventing the inconveniences which might follow the too common use of the former liberty of ordinations So Antonius de Rosellis fully expresseth my meaning in this Quilibet Presbyter Presbyteri ordinabant indiscretè schismata oriebantur Every Presbyter and Presbyters did ordain indifferently and thence arose schisms thence the liberty was restrained and reserved peculiarly to some persons who did act in the several Presbyteries as the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Prince of the Sanhedrin without whose presence no ordination by the Church was to be looked on as regular The main controversie is when this restraint began and by whose act whether by any act of the Apostles or only by the prudence of the Church its self as it was with the Sanhedrin But in order to our peace I see no such necessity of deciding it both parties granting that in the Church such a restraint was laid upon the liberty of ordaining Presbyters and the exercise of that power may be restrained still granting it to be radically and intrinsically in them So that this controversie is not such as should divide the Church For those that are for ordinations only by a Superiour order in the Church acknowledging a radical power for ordination in Presbyters which may be exercised in case of necessity do thereby make it evident that none who grant that do think that any positive Law of God hath forbidden Presbyters the power of ordination for then it must be wholly unlawful and so in case of necessity it cannot be valid Which Doctrine I dare with some confidence assert to be a stranger to our Church of England as shall be largely made appear afterwards On the other side those who hold ordinations by Presbyters lawful do not therefore hold them necessary but it being a matter of liberty and not of necessity Christ having no where said that none but Presbyters shall ordain this power then may be restrained by those who have the care of the Churches Peace and matters of liberty being restrained ought to be submitted to in order to the Churches Peace And therefore some have well observed the difference between the opinions of Hierom and Aerius For as to the matter it self I believe upon the strictest enquiry Medina's judgement will prove true that Hierom Austin Ambrose Sedulius Primasius Chrysostome Theodores Theophylact were all of Aerius his judgement as to the Identity of both name and order of Bishops and Presbyters in the Primitive Church but here lay the difference Aerius from hence proceeded to separation from Bishops and their Churches because they were Bishops And Blondell well observes that the main ground why Aerius was condemned was for unnecessary separation from the Church of Sebastia and those Bishops too who agreed with him in other things as Eustathius the Bishop did Whereas had his meer opinion about Bishops been the ground of his being condemned there can be no reason assigned why this heresie if it were then thought so was not mentioned either by Socrates Theodoret Sozomen or Evagrius before whose time he lived when yet they mention the Eustathiani who were co-temporaries with him But for Epiphanius and Augustine who have listed him in the roul of Hereticks it either was for the other heretical opinions maintained by him or they took the name Heretick as it is evident they often did for one who upon a matter of different opinion from the present sense of the Church did proceed to make separation from the Unity of the Catholick Church which I take to be the truest account of the reputed Heresie of Aerius For otherwise it is likely that Ierome who maintained so great correspondency and familiarity with Epiphanius and thereby could not but know what was the cause why Aerius was condemned for Heresie should himself run into the same Heresie and endeavour not only to assert it but to avouch and maintain it against the Judgement of the whole Church Ierome therefore was not ranked with Aerius because though he held the same opinion as to Bishops and Presbyters yet he was far from the consequence of Aerius that therefore all Bishops were to be separated from nay he was so far from thinking it necessary to cause a schism in the Church by separating from Bishops that his opinion is clear that the first institution of them was for preventing schisms and therefore for peace and unity he thought their institution very useful in the Church of God And among all those fifteen testimonies produced by a learned Writer ouâ— of Ierome for the superiority of Bishopâ— above Presbyters I cannot find one that doth found it upon any Divine Right but only upon the conveniency of such an order for the peace and unity of the Church of God Which is his meaning in that place most produced to this purpose Ecclesiae salus
toto orbe decretum ut unus de Presbyteris electus superponeretur caeteris Quomodo enim saith a learned man fieri poâ—uit ut toto hoc orbe decerneretur nullo jam Oecumenico Concilio ad illud decernendum congregaâ—o si non ab Apostolis ipsis fidem toto orbe promulgantibiss cum fide hanc regendi Ecclesias formam constituentibus factum sit So that he conceives so general an order could not be made unless the Apostles themselves at that time were the authors of it But First Ieroms In toto orbe dicretâ—m est relates not to an antecedent order which was the ground of the institution of Episcopacy but to the universal establishment of that order which came up upon the occasion of so many schisms it is something therefore consequent upon the first setting up Episcopacy which is the general obtaining of it in the Churches of Christ when they saw its usefulness in order to the Churches peace therefore the Emphasis lies not in decretum est but in toto orbe noting how suddenly this order met with universal acceptance when it first was brought up in the Church after the Apostles death Which that it was Ieroms meaning appears by what he saith after Paulatim verò ut dissensionum plantaria evellerentur ad unum omnem solicitudinem esse delatam Where he notes the gradual obtaining of it which I suppose was thus according to his opinion first in the Colledge of Presbyters appointed by the Apostles there being a necessity of order there was a President among them who had 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as the President of the Senate i. e. did moderate the affairs of the Assembly by proposing matters to it gathering voices being the first in all matters of concernment but he had not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as Casaubon very well distinguisheth them i. e. had no power over his fellow-Presbyters but that still resided in the Colledge or body of them After this when the Apostles were taken out of the way who kept the main power in their own hands of ruling the several Presbyteries or delegated some to do it who had a main hand in the planting Churches with the Apostles and thence are called in Scripture sometimes Fellow-labourers in the Lord and sometimes Evangelists and by Theodoret Apostles but of a second order after I say these were deceased and the main power left in the Presbyteries the several Presbyters enjoying an equal power among themselves especially being many in one City thereby great occasion was given to many schisms partly by the bandying of the Presbyters one against another partly by the sidings of the people with some against the rest partly by the too common use of the power of ordinations in Presbyters by which they were more able to increase their own party by ordaining those who would joyn with them and by this means to perpetuate schisms in the Church upon this when the wiser and graver sort considered the abuses following the promiscuous use of this power of ordination and withall having in their minds the excellent frame of the Government of the Church under the Apostles and their Deputies and for preventing of future schisms and divisions among themselves they unanimously agreed to choose one out of their number who was best qualified for the management of so great a trust and to devolve the exercise of the power of ordination and jurisdiction to him yet so as that he â—ct nothing of importance without the consent and concurrence of the Presbyters who were still to be as the Common Council to the Bishop This I take to be the true and just account of the Original of Episcopacy in the Primitive Church according to Ierome Which model of Government thus contrived and framed sets forth to us a most lively character of that great Wisdom and Moderation which then ruled the heads and hearts of the Primitive Christians and which when men have searched and studyed all other wayes the abuses incident to this Government through the corruptions of men and times being retrenched will be found the most agreeable to the Primitive form both as asserting the due interest of the Presbyteries and allowing the due honour of Episcopacy and by the joynt harmony of both carrying on the affairs of the Church with the greatest Unity Concord and Peace Which form of Government I cannot see how any possible reason can be produced by either party why they may not with chearfulness embrace it Secondly another evidence that Ierome by decretum est did not mean an order of the Apostles themselves is by the words which follow the matter of the decree viz. Ut unus de Presbyteris electus superponeretur caeteris one chosen not only out of but by the Presbyters should be set above the rest for so Ierome must be understood for the Apostles could not themselves choose out of all Presbyteries one person to be set above the rest and withall the instance brought of the Church of Alexandria makes it evident to be meant of the choosing by the Presbyters and not by the Apostles Besides did Ierome mean choosing by the Apostles he would have given some intimations of the hand the Apostles had in it which we see not in him the least ground for And as for that pretence that Ecclesiae consuetudo is Apostolica traditio I have already made it appear that Apostolica traditio in Ierome is nothing else but Consuetudo Ecclesiae which I shall now confirm by a pregnant and unanswerable testimony out of Ierome himself Unaquaeque provincia abundet in sensu suo praecepta majorum leges Apostolicas arbitretur Let every Province abound in its own sense and account of the ordinances of their Ancestors as of Apostolical Laws Nothing could have been spoken more fully to open to us what Ierome means by Apostolical traditions viz the practice of the Church in former ages though not coming from the Apostles themselves Thus we have once more cleared Ierome and the truth together I only wish all that are of his judgement for the practice of the primitive Church were of his temper for the practice of their own and while they own not Episcopacy as necessary by a divine right yet being duly moderated and joyned with Presbyteries they may embrace it as not only a lawful but very useful constitution in the Church of God By which we may see what an excellent temper may be found out most fully consonant to the primitive Church for the management of ordinations and Church power viz. by the Presidency of the Bishop and the concurrence of the Presbyterie For the Top-gallant of Episcopacy can never be so well managed for the right steering the ship of the Church as when it is joyned with the under-sails of a Moderate Presbyterie So much shall suffice to speak here as to the power of ordination which we have found to be derived from the Synagogue and the customes observed in
it transplanted into the Church There are yet some things remaining as to Ordination wherein the Church did imitate the Synagogue which will admit of a quick dispatch as the number of the persons which under the Synagogue were alwaies to be at least three This being a fundamental constitution among the Jews as appears by their writings 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Ordination of Presbyters by laying on of hands must be done by three at the least To the same purpose Maimonides 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 They did not ordain any by imposition of hands into a power of judicature without the number of three Which number Peter Galatinus and Postellus conceive necessary to be all ordained themselves but Master Selden thinks it was sufficient if there were but one of that number so ordained who was to be as principal in the action whose opinion is favoured by Maimonides who adds to the words last cited out of him Of which Three one at the least must be ordained himself Let us now see the Parallel in the Church of God The first solemn Ordination of Elders under the Gospel which some think to be set down as a Pattern for the Church to follow is that we read of Acts 13. 1 2 3. Which was performed by three for we read in the first verse that there were in the Church at Antioch five Prophets and Teachers Barnabas Simeon Lucius Manaen and Saul of these five the Holy-Ghost said that two must be separated for the work whereto God had called them which were Barnabas and Saul there remain onely the other three Simeon Lucius and Manaen to lay their hands on them and ordain them to their work Accordingly those who tell us that Iames was ordained Bishop of Ierusalem do mention the three Apostles who concurred in the ordaining of him But most remarkable for this purpose is the Canon of the Nicene Council wherein this number is set down as the regular number for the Ordination of Bishops without which it was not accounted Canonical The words are these 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. e. The Ordination of a Bishop should if possible be performed by all the Bishops of the Province which if it cannot easily be done either through some urgent necessity or the tediousness of the way three Bishops at least must be there for the doing it which may be sufficient for the Ordination if those that are absent do express their consent and by Letters approve of the doing of it To the same purpose Theodoret 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Canons injoyn all the Bishops of the Province to be present at the Ordination of one and forbid the Ordination of any without three being present at it Thus we see how the Constitution of the Synagogue was exactly observed in the Church as to the number of the persons concurring to a regular Ordination The last thing as to Ordination bearing Analogy to the Synagogue is the effect of this Ordination upon the person It was the Custom of the Jews to speak of all that were legally Ordained among them 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and the Divine Presence or Schecinah rested upon them which sometimes they called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Holy Spirit supposed to be in a peculiar manner present after this solemn Separation of them from others in the world and Dedication of them unto God Answerable to this may that of our Saviour be when he gives his Apostles authority to preach the Gospel he doth it in that Form of words Receive ye the Holy Ghost and then gives them the power of binding and loosing usually conveyed in the Jewish Ordinations Whose sins ye remit they are remitted and whose sins ye retain they are retained So that as under the Law they by their Ordination received a moral Faculty or Right to exercise that power they were Ordained to so under the Gospel all who are Ordained according to Gospel Rules have a right authority and power conveyed thereby for the dispensing of the Word and Sacraments Which right and power must not be conceived to be an internal indelible Character as the Papists groundlesly conceive but a moral legal Right according to the Lawes of Christ because the persons Ordaining do not act in it in a natural but a moral Capacity and so the effect must be moral and not physical which they must suppose it to be who make it a Character and that indelible Thus much may serve to clear how Ordination in all its circumstances was derived from the Jewish Synagogue The other thing remaining to be spoken to as to the correspondence of the Church with the Synagogue in its constitution is what order the Apostles did settle in the several Churches of their Plantation for the Ruling and Ordering the Affairs of them Before I come to speak so much to it as will be pertinent to our present purpose and design we may take notice of the same name for Church-Rulers under the Gospel which there was under the Synagogue viz. that of Presbyters The name Presbyter as the Hebr. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 though it Originally import Age yet by way of connotation it hath been looked on as a name both of Dignity and Power Because Wisdome was supposed to dwell with a multitude of years therefore persons of age and experience were commonly chosen to places of honour and trust and thence the name importing age doth likewise cary dignity along with it Thence we read in the time of Moses how often the Elders were gathered together Thence Eliezer is called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Gen. 24. 2. which the Greek renders 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Seignior Domo the chief Officer in his house and so we read Gen. 50. 6. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Elders of the Land of Egypt So the Elders of Mâ—dian the Elders of Israel the Elders of the Cities so among the Greeks 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for their Council of State and among the Latines Senatus and our Saxon Aldermen in all importing both age and honour and power together But among the Jewes in the times of the Apostles it is most evident that the name 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 imported not only dignity but power the Presbyters among the Jewes having a power both of judgeing and teaching given them by their Semicha or Ordination Now under the Gospel the Apostles retaining the name and the manner of Ordination but not conferring that judiciary power by it which was in use among the Jewes to shew the difference between the Law and the Gospel it was requisite some other name should be given to the Governours of the Church which should qualifie the importance of the word Presbyters to a sense proper to a Gospel State Which was the Original of giving the name 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to the Governours of the Church under the Gospel A name importing Duty more then Honour and not a
title above Presbyter but rather used by way of diminution and qualification of the power implyed in the name of Presbyter Therefore to shew what kind of power and Duty the name Presbyter imported in the Church the Office conveyed by that name is called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and Presbyters are said 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 1 Pet. 5 2. where it is opposed to that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Lording it over the people as was the custome of the Presbyters among the Jews So that if we determine things by importance of words and things signified by them the power of Ordination was proper to the name 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 because the former name did then import that power and not the latter We come therefore from the names to the things then implyed by them and the Offices established by the Apostles for the ruling of Churches But my design being not to dispute the arguments of either party viz. those who conceive the Apostles setled the Government of the Church in an absolute parity or else by Superiority and Subordination among the setled Officers of the Church but to lay down those principles which may equally concern both in Order to accommodation I find not my self at present concerned to debate what is brought on either side for the maintaining their particular Opinion any further then thereby the Apostles intentions are brought to have been to bind all future Churches to observe that individual Form they conceived was in practice then All that â— have to say then concerning the course taken by the Apostles in setling the Government of the Churches under which will be contained the full Resolution of what I promised as to the correspondency to the Synagogue in the Government of Churches lies in these three Propositions which I now shall endeavour to clear viz. That neither can we have that certainty of Apostolical practice which is necessary to Constitute a Divine right nor Secondly Is it probable that the Apostles did tye themselves up to any one fixed course in modelling Churches nor thirdly if they did doth it necessarily follow that we must observe the same If these three considerations be fully cleared we may see to how little purpose it is to Dispute the Significancy and Importance of words and names as used in Scripture which hitherto the main quarrel hath been about I therefore begin with the first of these That we cannot arrive to such an absolute certainty what course the Apostles took in Governing Churches as to inferr from thence the only Divine Right of that one Form which the several parties imagine comes the nearest to it This I shall make out from these following arguments First from the equivalency of the names and the doubtfulness of their signification from which the Form of Government used in the New Testament should be determined That the Form of Government must be derived from the Importance of the names of Bishop and Presbyter is hotly pleaded on both sides But if there can be no certain way sound out whereby to come to a Determination of what the certain Sense of those names is in Scripture we are never like to come to any certain Knowledge of the things signified by those names Now there is a fourfold equivalency of the names Bishop and Presbyter taken notice of 1. That both should signifie the same thing viz. a Presbyter in the modern Notion i. e. one acting in a parity with others for the Government of the Church And this Sense is evidently asserted by Theodoret 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Apostle Acts 20. 28. Philip. 1. 1. Titus 1. 5. 1 Tim. 3. 1. doth by Bishops mean nothing else but Presbyters otherwise it were impossible for more Bishops to govern one City 2. That both of them should signifie promiscuously sometimes a Bishop and sometimes a Presbyter so Chrysostome and after him Occumenius and Theophylact in Phil. 1. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and in Acts 20. 28. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Where they assert the Community and promiscuous use of the names in Scripture so that a Bishop is sometimes called a Presbyter and a Presbyter sometimes called a Bishop 3. That the name Bishop alwayes imports a singular Bishop but the name Presbyter is taken promiscuously both for Bishop and Presbyter 4. That both the names Bishop and Presbyter doe import onely one thing in Scripture viz. the Office of a singular Bishop in every Churchâ— which Sense though a stranger to antiquity is above all other embraced by a late very Learned Man who hath endeavoured by set Discourses to reconcile all the places of Scripture where the names occur to this sense but with what success it is not here a place to examine By this variety of Interpretation of the Equivalency of the names of Bishop and Presbyter we may see how far the argument from the promiscuous use of the names is from the Controversie in hand unless some evident arguments be withall brought that the Equivalency of the words cannot possibly be meant in any other Sense then that which they contend for Equivocal words can never of themselves determine what Sense they are to be taken in because they are Equivocal and so admit of different Senses And he that from the use of an Equivocal word would inferr the necessity onely of one sense when the word is common to many unless some other argument be brought inforcing that necessity will be so far from perswading others to the same belief that he will only betray the weakness and shortness of his own reason When Augustus would be called only Princeps Senatus could any one inferr from thence that certainly he was onely the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the Senate or else that he had superiority of power over the Senate when that Title might be indifferent to either of those senses All that can be infer'd from the promiscuous sense of the words is that they may be understood only in this sense but it must be proved that they can be understood in no other sense before any one particular form of Government as necessâ—ry can be inferred from the use of them If notwithstanding the promiscuous use of the name Bishop and Presbyter either that Presbyter may mean a Bishop or that Bishop may mean a Presbyter or be sometimes used for one sometimes for the other what ground can there be laid in the equivalency of the words which can inferr the only Divine Right of the form of Government couched in any one of those senses So likewise it is in the Titles of Angels of the Churches If the name Angel imports no incongruity though taken only for the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the Jewish Synagogue the publick Minister of the Synagogue called the Angel of the Congregation what power can be inferred from thence any more then such an Officer was invested with Again if the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or President
Ignatius of all others be brought to Rome to suffer when the Proconsuls and the Praesides provinciarum did every where in time of persecution execute their power in punishing Christians at their own Tribunals without sending them so long a journey to Rome to be martyred there And how came Ignatius to make so many and such strange excursions as he did by the story if the Souldiers that were his Guard were so cruel to him as he complains they were Now all those uncertain and fabulous Narrations as to Persons then arising from want of sufficient Records made at those times make it more evident how incompetent a Judge antiquity is as to the certainty of things done in Apostolical times If we should onely speak of the Fabulous Legends of the first Planters of Churches in these Western parts we need no further evidence of the great defect of antiquity as to persons Not to goe out of our own Nation Whence come the stories of Peter Iames Paul Simon Aristobulus besides Ioseph of Arimathea and his company all being Preachers of the Gospel and planters of Churches here but onely from the great defect in Antiquity as to the Records of persons imployed in the several places for preaching the Gospell Thus much to shew the defectiveness as to the Records of antiquity and thereby the incompetency of them for being a way to find out the certain course the Apostles took in Setling and Governing Churches by them Planted The next thing shewing the incompetency of the Records of the Church for deciding the certain Form of Church-Government in the Apostles times is the ambiguity of the Testimony given by those Records A Testimony sufficient todecide a Controversie must be plain and evident and must speak full and home to the Case under debate Now if I make it appear that antiquity doth not so nothing then can be evident from thence but that we are left to as great uncertainties as before The matter in Controversie is whether any in a Superiour Order to Presbyters were instituted by the Apostles themselves for the Regulating of the Churches by them planted For the proving of which three things are the most insisted on First the Personal succession of some persons to the Apostles in Churches by them planted Secondly the appropriating the name 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to Bishops in a Superiour Order to Presbyters after the Apostles decease Thirdly the Churches owning the Order of Episcopacy as of Divine Institution If now we can make these three things evident First That personall Succession might be without such superiority of Order Secondly That the names of Bishop and Presbyters were common after the Distinction between them was introduced and Thirdly That the Church did not own Episcopacy as a Divine Institution but Ecclesiasticall and those who seem to speak most of it do mean no more I shall suppose enough done to invalidate the Testimony of antiquity as to the matter in hand First Then for the matter of Succession in Apostolical Churches I shall lay down these four things to evince that the argument drawn from thence cannot fully clear the certain course which the Apostles took in setling the Government of Churches First That the Succession might be onely as to different Degree and not as to a different Order where the Succession is clear nothing possibly can be inferred from it beyond this For bare Succession implies no more then that there was one in those Churches succeeding the Apostles from whom afterwards the succession was derived Now then supposing onely at present that it was the Custome in all the Churches at that time to be ruled by a Colledge of Presbyters acting in a parity of Power and among these one to sit as the Nasi in the Sanhedrin having a priority of Order above the rest in place without any superiory of Power over his Colleagues will not the matter of Succession be clear and evident enough notwithstanding this Succession of Persons was the thing inquired for and not a Succession of Power if therefore those that would prove a Succession of Apostolical Power can onely produce a List and Catalogue of names in Apostolical Churches without any evidence of what power they had they apparently fail of proving the thing in question which is not whether there might not be found out a List of persons in many Churches derived from the Apostles times but whether those persons did enjoy by way of peculiarity and appropriation to themselves that power which the Apostles had over many Churches while they lived Now this the meer Succession will never prove which will best appear by some Parallel instances At Athens after they grew weary of their ten yeares 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the people chose nine every year to Govern the affairs of the Common-wealth These nine enjoyed a parity of power among themselves and therefore had a place where they consulted together about the matters of State which was called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as Demosthenes Plutarch and others tell us Now although they enjoyed this equality of power yet One of them had greater Dignity then the rest and therefore was called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by way of excellency and his name was onely set in the publike Records of that year and therefore was called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and the year was reckoned from him as Pausanias and Iulius Pollux inform us Here we see now the Sccession clear in one single person and yet no superiority of power in him over his Colleagues The like may be observed among the Ephori and Bidiaej at Sparta the number of the Ephori was alwayes five from their first institution by Lycurgus and not nine as the Greek Etymologist imagines these enjoyed likewise a parity of power among them but among these to give name to the year they made choice of one who was called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 here too â—s the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 at Athens and him they called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as Plutarch tells us Where we have the very name 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 attributed to him that had only his primacy of order without any superiority of power which is used by Iustin Martyr of the President of assemblies among the Christians Now from hence we may evidently see that meer succession of some single persons named above the rest in the successions in Apostolicall Churches cannot inforce any superiority of power in the persons so named above others supposed to be as joynt Governours of the Churches with them I dispute not whether it were so or no whether according to Blondel the Succession was from the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or whether by choice as at Alexandria but I onely now shew that this argument from Succession is weak and proves not at all the certainty of the power those persons enjoyed Secondly This Succession is not so evident and convincing in all places as it ought to be to demonstrate the thing
à Johanne conlocatum refert sicut Romanorum Clementem à Petro ordinatum edit Proinde utique caeterae exhibent quos ab Apostolis in Episcopatum constitutos Apostolici seminis traduces habeant A succession I grant is proved in Apostolical Churches by these words of Tertullian and this succession of persons and those persons Bishops too but then it is only said that these persons derived their office from the Apostles but nothing expressed what relation they had to the Church any more then is implyed in the general name of Episcopi nor what power they had over Presbyters only that there were such persons was sufficient to his purpose which was to prescribe against heretickes i. e. to Non-suit them or to give in general reasons why they were not to be proceeded with as to the particular debate of the things in question between them For praescribere in the civil Law whence Tertullian transplanted that word as many other into the Church is cum quis adversarium certis exceptionibus removet à lite contestandâ ita ut de summa rei neget agendum eamve causam ex juris praescripto judicandaÌ„ three sorts of these prescriptions Tertullian elsewere mentions Hoc exigere veritatem cui nemo praescribere potest non spatium temporum non patrocinia personarum non privilegium regionum Here he stands upon the first which is a prescription of time because the Doctrine which was contrary to that of the Hereticks was delivered by the Apostles and conveyed down by their successors which was requisite to be shewed in order to the making his prescription good Which he thus further explains Age jam qui voles curiositatem melius exercere in negotio salutis tuae percurre Ecclesias Apostolicas apud quas ipsae adhuc Cathedrae Apostolorum suis locis praesidentur apud quas ipsae authenticae eorum literae recitantur sonantes vocem praesentantes faciem uniuscujusque Proximè est tibi Achaia habes Corinthum Si non longe es à Macedonia habes Philippos habes Thessalonicenses Si potes in Asiam tendere habes Ephesum Sâ— autem Italiae adjaces habes Romam unde nobis quoque auctoritas praestò est What he spoke before of the persons he now speaks of the Churches themselves planted by the Apostles which by retaining the authentick Epistles of the Apostles sent to them did thereby sufficiently prescribe to all the novell opinions of the Hereticks We see then evidently that it is the Doctrine which they speak of as to succession and the persons no further then as they are the conveyers of that Doctrine either then it must be proved that a succession of some persons in Apostolical power is necessary for the conveying of this Doctrine to men or no argument at all can be inferred from hence for their succeeding the Apostles in their power because they are said to convey down the Apostolical Doctrine to succeeding ages Which is Austins meaning in that speech of his Radix Christianae societatis per sedes Apostolorum successiones Episcoporum certa per orbem propagatione diffunditur The root of Christian society i. e. the Doctrine of the Gospel is spread abroad the world through the channels of the Apostolical Sees and the continued successions of Bishops therein And yet if we may believe the same Austin Secundum honorum vocabula quae jam Ecclesiae usus obtinuit Episcopatus Presbyterio major est The difference between Episcopacy and Presbyterie rise from the custome of the Church attributing a name of greater honour to those it had set above others And as for Tertullian I believe neither party will stand to his judgement as to the original of Church power For he saith expresly Differentiâ—m inter ordinem plebem constituit Ecclesia auctoritas all the difference between Ministers and people comes from the Churches authority unless he mean something more by the following words honor per Ordinis concessum sanctificatus à Deo viz. that the honour which is received by ordination from the Bench of Church-Officers is sanctified by God i. e. by his appointment as well as blessing For otherwise I know not how to understand him But however we see here he makes the Government of the Church to lye in a Concessus ordinis which I know not otherwise to render than by a Bench of Presbyters because only they were said in ordinem cooptari who were made Presbyters and not those who were promoted to any higher degree in the Church By the way we may observe the original of the name of Holy Orders in the Church not as the Papists and others following them as though it noted any thing inherent by way of I know not what character in the person but because the persons ordained were thereby admitted in Ordinem among the number of Church-officers So there was Ordo Senatorum Ordo Equestris Ordo Decurionum and Ordo Sacerdotum among the Romans as in this Inscription ORDO SACERDOT DEI HERCULIS INVICTI From hence the use of the word came into the Church and thence Ordination ex vi vocis imports no more than solemn admission into this order of Presbyters and therefore it is observable that laying on of hands never made men Priests under the Law but only admitted them into publike Office So much for Tertullians Concessus ordinis which hath thus fâ—r drawn us out of our way but we now return And therefore Fourthly This personal suceession so much spoken of â—â— sometimes attributed to Presbyters even after the distinction came into use between Bishops and them And that even by those Authors who before had told us the succession was by Bishops as Irenaeus Cum autem ad eam iterum traditionem quâ— est ab Apostolis quâ— per successiones Presbyterorum in Ecclesiis custoditur provocamus eos qui adversantur traditioni dicent se non solum Presbyteris sed etiam Apostolis existentes sapientiores c. Here he attributes the keeping of the Pradition of Apostolical Doctrine to the succession of Presbyters which before he had done to Bishops And more fully afterwards Quapropter iis qui in Ecclesiâ sunt Presbyteris obaudire oportet his qui successionem habent ab Apostolis sicut ostendimus qui cum Episcopatus successione charisma veritatis certum secundum placitum patris acceperunt In this place he not only asserts the succession of Presbyters to the Apostles but likewise attributes the successio Episcopatus to these very Presbyters What strange confusion must this raise in any ones mind that seeks for a succession of Episcopal power above Presbyters from the Apostles by the Testimony of Irenaeus when he so plainly attributes both the succession to Presbyters and the Episcopacy too which he speaks of And in the next chapter adds Tales Presbyteros nutrit Ecclesia de quibus Propheta ait dabo principes tuos in pace Episcopos
tuos in justitiâ Did Irenaeus think that Bishops in a superiour order to Presbyters were derived by an immediate succession from the Apostles and yet call the Presbyters by the name of Bishops It is said indeed that in the Apostles times the names Bishop and Presbyter were comman although the Office was distinct but that was only during the Apostles life say some when after the name Bishop was appropriated to that order that was in the Apostles so called before but say others it was only till subject Presbyters was constituted and then grew the difference between the names But neither of these 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 can draw forth the difficulty in these places of Irenaeus for now both the Apostles were dead and subject Presbyters certainly in some of these Apostolical Churches were then constituted whence comes then the community of names still that those who are said to succeed the Apostles are called Bishops in one place but Presbyters in another and the very succession of Episcopacy attributed to Presbyters Can we then possibly conceive that these testimonies of Irenaeus can determine the point of succession so as to make clear to us what that power was which those persons enjoyed whom he sometimes calls Bishops and sometimes Presbyters But it is not Irenaeus alone who tells us that Presbyters succeed the Apostles even Cyprian who pleads so much for obedience to the Bishops as they were then constituted in the Church yet speaks often of his compresbyteri and in his Epistles to Florentius Pupianus who had reproached him speaking of those words of Christ He that heareth you heareth me c. Qui dicit ad Apostoles aâ— per hoc ad omnes praepositos qui Apostolis vicariâ ordinatione succedunt where he attrâ—butes Apostolical succession to all that were praepositi which name implies not the relation to Presbyters as over them but to the people and is therefore common both to Bishops and Presbyters for so afterwards he speaks nec fraternitas habuerit Episcopum nec plâ—bs Praepositum c. Ierome saith that Presbyters are loco Apostolorum and that they do Apostolico gradui succeders and the so much magnified Ignatius 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that the Presbyters succeeded in the place of the Bench of Apostles and elsewhere of Sotion the Deacon 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as it is read in the Florentine copy set out by Vossius but in the former Editions both by Vedelius and the most learned Primate of Armagh it is read 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but that of Vossius seems to be the true reading to which the old Latin version in Bishop Usher fully agrees Quoniam subjectus est Episcopo ut gratiâ— Dei Presbyterio ut legi Jesu Christi It might be no improbable conjecture to guess from hence at Ignatius his opinion concerning the original both of Episcopacy and Presbyterie The former he looks on as an excellent gift of God to the Church so a learned Doctor paraphraseth Gratiâ— Dei i. e. Dono à Deo Ecclesiae â—ndulto so Cyprian often Divina dignatione speaking of Bishops i. e. that they looked on it as an act of Gods special favour to the Church to find out that means for unity in the Church to pitch upon one among the Presbyters who should have the chief Rule in every particular Church but then for Presbyterie he looks on that as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 an institution and Law of Iesus Christ which must on that account alwayes continue in the Church And â—o Sotion did commendably in submitting to the Bishop as a Favour of God to the Church for preventing schismâ— on which account it is and not upon the account of divine institution that Ignatius is so earnest in requiring obedience to the Bishop because as Cyprian faith Ecclesia est plebs Episcopo coadâ—nata grex Pastori adhaerens and the Bishops then being Orthodox he layes such a charge upon the people to adherâ— to them for it is to the people and not to the Presbyters he speaks most which was as much as to bid them hold to the unity of the faith and avoid those pernicious heresies which were then abroad and so Ignatius and Ierome may easily be reconciled to one another both owning the Council of Presbyters as of divine institution and both requiring obedience to Bishops as a singular priviledge granted to the Church for preventing schisms and preserving unity in the Faith And in all those thirty five Testimonies produced out of Ignatius his Epistles for Episcopacy I can meet but with one which is brought to prove the least femblance of an Institution of Christ for Episcopacy and if I be not much deceived the sense of that place is clearly mistaken too the place is Ep. ad Ephesios He is exhorting the Ephesians 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which I suppose may be rendred to fulfill the will of God so 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies Apocalyps 17. 17. and adds 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 He begins to exhort them to concur with the will of God and concludes his Exhortation to concur with the will or counsel of the Bishop and in the middle he shews the ground of the connexion of these two together for Christ saith he who is our inseparable life is the counsel of the Father and the Bishops who are scattered abroad to the ends of the earth are the counsel of Iesus Christ i. e. do concur with the will of Christ therefore follow the counsel of your Bishop which also you do Every thing is plain and obvious in the sense here and very coherent to the expressions both before and after only the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 must be left out as plainly redundant and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 must not be rendred determinati but rather disterminati because it refers to a place here and so it notes their being dispersed into several places and separated from one another thereby implying the unity of their faith and the coagulum fidei notwithstanding their distance from one another as to place in the World which in Cyprians words is Ecclesiae universae per totum mundum unitatis vinculo copulatae And certainly a stronger argument then this could not have been given for the Ephesians chearfull obedience to their Bishop which is the thing beaims at then the universal consent of all the Bishops in the Christian World in the unity of the faith of Christ so that as Christ is the will and counsel of the Father because of that Harmony and consent which is between their wills so the Bishops are the will and counsel of Christ as chearfully uniting in the profession of his Faith So that we see Ignatius himself cannot give a doubting mind satisfaction of the Divine institution of Bishops when in the only place brought to that purpose his sense is quite different from what it is brought for So that the Records of the Church are far from deciding this
controversie as to the certainty of the form of Government instituted by Christ because of the Ambiguity of those Records as to the point of succession to the Apostles in that this succession might be only of a different degree in that it is not clear and convincing in all places in that where it is clearest it is meant of a succession of Doctrine and not of persons in that if it were of persons yet Presbyters are said to succeed the Apostles as well as Bishops by the same persons who speak of these By which last thing we have likewise cleared the Second thing propounded to shew the ambiguity of the Testimony of Antiquity which was the promiscuous use of the names of Bishop and Presbyters after the distinction between their office was brought in by the Church For we have made it appear that the names are promiscuously used when that succession which is sometimes attributed to Bishops is at other times given to Presbyters Other instances might be brought of that nature as first that of Clemens Romanus in his excellent Epistâ—e which like the River Alpâ—eus had run under ground for so many centuries of years but hath now in these last times of the world appeared publikely to the view of the World to make it appear how true that is which he saith the Apostles did foresee 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that there would be great contentions about the name of Episcopacy and so there are still and that from his Epistle too For when in one place he tells us that the Apostles ordained their first fruits to be Bishops and Deacons 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of those that should believe afterwards he makes no scruple of calling those Bishops Presbyters in several places 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. and speaking of the present schism at Corinth he saith it was a most shamefull thing and unworthy of Christians 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 To hear the firm and ancient Church of Corinth for the sake of one or two persons to raise a sedition against the Presbyters and afterwards 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Only lâ—t the flock of Christ enjoy its peace with the Presbyters which are set over it But because this is said to be spoken before the time of distinction between Bishops and Presbyters it being supposed that there were no subject Presbyters then although no reason can be assigned why the Apostles should ordain Bishops 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of those that should believe and should not likewise ordain Presbyters for them yet to take away all scruple we shall go farther when subject Presbyters as they are called are acknowledged to be and yet Bishops are call'd Presbyters then too For which we have the clear testimony of the Martyrs of the Gallican Church in their Epistle to Eleutherius Bishop of Rome who call Irenaeus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 when as Blondell observes he had been nine years Bishop of Lyons in the place of Pothinus neither doth Blondels argument lye here that because they call him the Presbyter of the Church therefore he was no Bishop as his Antagonist supposeth but he freely acknowledgeth him to have succeeded Pothinus there in his Bishoprick but because after the difference arose between Bishop and Presbyters yet they called him by the name of Presbyter it seems very improbable that when they were commending one to the Bishop of another Church they should make use of the lowest name of honour then appropriated to subject Presbyters which instead of commending were a great debasing of him if they had looked on a superiour order above those Presbyters as of divine institution and thought there had been so great a distance between a Bishop and subject Presbyters as we are made to believe there was Which is as if the Master of a Colledge in one University should be sent by the Fellows of his Society to the Heads of the other and should in his Commendatory letters to them be styled a Senior Fellow of that House Would not any one that read this imagine that there was no difference between a Senior Fellow and a Master but only a primacy of order that he was the first of the number without any power over the rest This was the case of Irenaeus he is supposed to be Bishop of the Church of Lyons he is sent by the Church of Lyons on a Message to the Bishop of Rome when notwithstanding his being Bishop they call him Presbyter of that Church when there were other Presbyters who were not Bishops what could any one imagine by the reading of it but that the Bishop was nothing else but the Seniour Presbyter or one that had a primacy of order among but no divine Right to a power of jurisdiction over his Fellow Presbyters More instances of this nature are brought there by that learned Author which the Reader may compare with the answers and then let him judge whether the Testimony of Antiquity have not too much ambiguity in it to decide the Controversie clearly on either side But that which seems yet more material is that which we observed in the third place that those who acknowledge the superiority of Bishops over Presbyters do impute it to an act of the Church and not ascribe it to any divine institution The testimony of Ierome to this purpose is well known and hath been produced already that of the counterfeit Ambiose but true Hilary is in every ones mouth upon this Controversie Quia primum Presbyteri Episcopi appellabantur ut recedente uno sequensti succederet sed quia coeperunt sequentes Presbyteri indigni inveniri ad primatus tenendos immutata est ratio prospiciente Coâ—cilio ut non ordo sed meritum crearet Episcopum multorum Sacerdotum judicio constitutum ne indignus temerâ— Usurparet esset multis scandalum Very strange that an opinion so directly contrary to the Divine right of Episcopâ—cy should be published by a Deacon of the Church of Rome and these Commentaries cited by Austin with applause of the person without stigmatizing him for a heretick with Aerius if it had been the opinion of the Church that Bishops in their power over Presbyters did succeed the Apostles by a Divine Right Nothing more clear then that he asserts all the difference between a Bishop and Presbyters to arise from an act of the Church choosing men for their deserts when before they succeeded in order of place It is a mistake of Blundels to attribute this to the Nicene Council doub less he means no more then that Hierom calls Concilium Presbyterorum or which he himself means by judicium Sacerdotum The testimony of Austin hath been already mentioned Secundum honorum vocabula quae jam Ecclesiae usus obtinuit Episcopatus Presbyterio major est Thereby implying it was not so alwayes else to what purpose serves that jam obtinuit and that the original of the difference was from the Church But more express and full is
Isidore himself the Bishop of Sevill in Spain speaking of Presbyters His sicut Episcopis dispensatio mysteriorum Dei commissa est praesunt eni◠Ecclesiis Christi in confectione corporis sanguinis consortes cum Episcopis sunt similiter in doctrina populi in Officio praedicandi sed sola propter auctoritatem summo sacerdoti Clericorum Ordinatio reservata est ne à multis Ecclesiae Disciplina vindicatae concordiam solueret scandala generaret What could be spoken more to our purpose then this is he asserts the identity of power as well as name in both Bishops and Presbyters in governing the Church in celebrating the Eucharist in the Office of preaching to the people onely for the greater Honour of the Bishop and for preventing Schisms in the Church the power of Ordination was reserved to the Bishop by those words propter Auctoritatem he cannot possibly mean the Authority of a Divine Command for that his following words contradict that it was to prevent Schisms and Scandals and after produceth the whole place of Ierome to that purpose Agreeable to this is the judgment of the second Council of Sevil in Spain upon the occasion of the irregular proceeding of some Presbyters ordained by Agapius Bishop of Corduba Their words are these Nam quamvis cum Episcopis plurima illis Ministeriorum communis sit dispensatio quaedam novellis Ecclesiasticis regulis sibi prohibita noverint sicut Presbyterororum Diaconorum Virginum consecratio c. Haec enim omnia illicita esse Presbyteris quia Pontificatus apicem non habent quem solis deberi Episcopis authoritate Canonum praecipitur ut per hoc discretio graduum dignitatis fastigium summi Pontificis demonstretur How much are we beholding to the ingenuity of a Spanish Council that doth so plainly disavow the pretence of any divine right to the Episcopacy by them so strenuously asserted All the right they plead for is from the novellae Ecclesiasticae regula which import quite another thing from Divine institution and he that hath not learnt to distinguish between the authority of the Canons of the Church and that of the Scriptures will hardly ever understand the matter under debate with us and certainly it is another thing to preserve the honour of the different Degrees of the Clergy but especially of the chief among them viz. the Bishop than to observe a thing meerly out of Obedience to the command of Christ and upon the account of Divine institution That which is rejoyned in answer to these Testimonies as far as I can learn is onely this that the Council and Isidore followed Jerome and so all make up but one single Testimony But might it not as well be said that all that are for Episcopacy did follow Ignatius or Epiphanius and so all those did make up but one single Testimony on the other side Ye◠I do as yet despair of finding any one single Testimony in all Antiquity which doth in plain terms assert Episcopacy as it was setled by the practice of the Primitive Church in the ages following the Apostles to be of an unalterable Divine right Some expressions I grant in some of them seem to extoll Episcopacy very high but then it is in Order to the Peace and Unity of the Church and in that Sense they may sometimes be admitted to call it Divine and Apostolical not in regard of its institution but of its end in that it did in their Opinion tend as much to preserve the Unity of the Church as the Apostles Power did over the Churches while they were living If any shall meet with expressions seeming to carry the Fountain of Episcopal power higher let them remember to distinguish between the power it self and the restrained Exercise of that power the former was from the Apostles but common to all Dispensers of the Word the latter was appropriated to some but by an Act of the Church whereby an eminency of power was attributed to one for the safety of the whole And withall let them consider that every Hyperbolical expression of a Father will not bear the weight of an Argument and how common it was to call things Divine which were conceived to be of excellent use or did come from persons in authority in the Church One would think that should meet with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the Acts of the Council of Chalcedon it could be rendred by nothing short of the Scriptures whereas they mean no more by it but onely the Emperours Letters to the Council It hath been already observed how ready they were to call any custome of the Church before their times an Apostolical Tradition And as the Heathens when they had any thing which they knew not whence it came they usually called it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as though it came immediately from Heaven So the Fathers when Traditions were convey'd to them without the names of the Authors they conclude they could have no other Fountain but the Apostles And thus we see many Traditions in several Churches directly contrary to one another were looked on as Apostolical onely from the prevalency of this perswasion that whatever they derived from their Fathers was of that nature But then for that answer to the Council and Isidore and Ierome that they make but one testimony I say that although the words be of the same Sense yet they have the nature of a different testimony upon these accounts First as produced by persons of different condition in the Church some think they are even with Ierome when they tell us what a pique there was between him and Iohn Bishop of Ierusalem and that he might have the better advantage of his adversary when he could not raise himself up to the Honour of Episcopacy he would bring that down to the State of Presbytery but as such entertain too unworthy thoughts of one of those Fathers whom they profess themselves admirers of so this prejudice cannot possibly lie against Isidore or the Council For the first was himself a Bishop of no mean account in the Church of God and the Council was composed of such it could be no biass then of that nature could draw them to this Opinion and no doubt they would have been as forward to maintain their own authority in the Church as the Truth and Conscience would give them leave Therefore on this account one Testimony of a single Bishop much more of a whole Council of them against their acting by Divine Authority in the Church is of more validity then ten for it in as much as it cannot but be in Reason supposed that none will speak any thing against the authority they are in or what may tend in the least to diminish it but such as make more Conscience of the Truth then of their own Credit and Esteem in the World Secondly in that it was done in different ages of the Church Ierome flourished about
Lay-Elders Again we may consider where Timothy now was viz at Ephesus and therefore if such Lay-Elders anywhere they should be there Let us see then whether any such were here It is earnestly pleaded by all who are for Lay-Elders that the Elders spoken of Acts 20. 17. were the particular Elders of the Church of Ephesus to whom Paul spoke v. 28. where we may find their Office at large described Take heed therefore unto your selves and all the flock over which God hath made you 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Bishops or Overseers Here we see both the names Elders and Bishops confounded again so that he that was an Elder was a Bishop too and the Office of such Elders described to be a Pastoral charge over a flock which is inconsistent with the notion of a Lay-Elder Paul sent indefinitely for the Elders of the Church to come to him If any such then at Ephesus they must come at this summons all the Elders that came were such as were Pastors of Churches therefore there could be no Lay Elders there I insist not on the argument for maintenance implyed in double Honour which Chrysostome explains by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a supply of necessaries to be given to them as appears by ver 18. which argument Blondel saw such strength in that it brought him quite off from Lay-Elders in that place of Timothy And he that will remove the Controversie from the Scriptures to the Primitive Church as we have no reason to think that if such were appointed they should be so soon laid aside will find it the greatest dâ—fficulty to trace the foot-steps of a Lay-Elder through the Records of antiquity for the three first centuries especially The Writers of the Church speak of no Presbyters but such as preached as appears by Origen Cyprian and Clement of Alexandria Origen saith Omnes Episcopi atque omnâ—s Presbyteri vel Diaconi â—rudiunt nos erudientes adhibent correptionem verbis austerioribus increpant We see all Bishops Presbyters and Deacons wâ—re in his time Preachers So Cyprian Et creâ—ideram quidem Presbyteros Diaconos qui illic praesentes sunt monere vos instruere plenissimè circa Evangelii Legem sicut semper ab antecessoribus nostris factum est and in another Epistle about making Numidicus a Presbyter he thus expresseth it ut ascribatur Presbyterorum Carthaginensium numero nobiscum sedeat in Clero where to sit as one of the Clergy and to be a Presbyter are all one Again had there been any such Elders it would have belonged to them to lay hands on those that were reconciled to the Church after Censures now hands were onely laid on ab Episcopo Clero as the same Cyprian tells us Clemens Alexandrinus describing the Office of a Presbyter hath these words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 where Teaching is looked on as his proper work And elsewhere more fully and expresly discoursing of the service of God and distinguishing it according to the twofold service of men 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 he applies these to the Churches 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The former he explains afterwards 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 A Presbyter is one that is ordained or appointed for the instruction of others in order to their amendment implying thereby the Office of a Presbyter to be wholly conversant about teaching others to whom on that account the art of making others better doth properly belong So much may suffice for those first times of the Church that there were no Presbyters then but such as had the Office of Teaching And for the times afterwards of the Church let it suffice at present to produce the Testimony of a Council held in the beginning of the seventh Century who absolutely Decree against all Lay-persons medling in Church-affairs Nova actione didicimus quosdam ex nostro Collegio contra mores Ecclesiasticos laicos habere in rebus Divinis constitutos Oeconomos Proinde pariter tractantes eligimus ut unusquisque nostrûm secundum Chalcedonensium Patrum decreta ex proprio Clero Oeconomum sibi constituat Indecorum est enim Laicum esse vicarium Episcopi saculares in Ecclesia judicare iâ— uno enim eodemque Officiâ— non debet esse dispar professio A Canon directly leveld against all Lay-Chancellours in Bishops Courts and such Officials But doth with the same force take away all Lay-Elders as implying it to be wholly against the rule of the Church to have secular persons to judge in the Church But although I suppose this may be sufficient to manifest the no Divine right of Lay-Elders yet I do not therefore absolutely condemn all use of some persons chosen by the people to be as their representatives for managing their interest in the affairs of the Church For now the voice of the people which was used in the Primitive times is grown out of use such a constitution whereby two or more of the peoples choice might be present at Church debates might be very useful so they be looked on onely as a prudential humane constitution and not as any thing founded on Divine right So much may serve for the first Ground of the probability of the Apostles not observing one setled Form of Church-Government which was from the different state quantity and condition of the Churches by them planted The second was from the multitude of unfixed Officers residing in some places who managed the Affairs of the Church in chief during their Residence Such were the Apostles and Evangelists and all persons almost of note in Scripture They were but very sew and those in probability not the ablest who were left at home to take care of the spoil the strongest and ablest like Commanders in an Army were not setled in any Troop but went up and down from this company to that to order them and draw them forth and while they were they had the chief authority among them but as Commandets of the Army and not as Officers of the Troop Such were Evangelists who were sent sometimes into this Countrey to put the Churches in order there sometimes into another but where ever they were they acted as Evangelists and not as fixed Officers And sâ—câ— were Timothy and Titus notwithstanding all the Opposition made against it as will appear to any that will take an impartial Survey of the arguments on both sides Now where there were in some places Evangelists in others not and in many Churches it may be no other Officers but these it will appear that the Apostles did not observe one constant Form but were with the Evangelists travelling abroad to the Churches and ordering things in them as they saw cause But as to this I have anticipated my self already The last ground was from the different custome observed in the Churches after the Apostles times For no other rational account can be given of the different opinions of Epiphanius Ierome and
Hilary but this that one speakâ— of the Custome of some Churches and the other of others In some as at Alexandria the Presbyters might choose their Bishop in other places it might be as Hilary saith that when the first withdrew another succeeded him Not by a monethly or Annual rotation of Presidents as some have imagined but by a Presidency for life of one upon whose death another succeeded in his room For the former Opinion hath not any Evidence at all for it in Scripture or Antiquity or in the place brought to prove it For according to this Opinion Timothy must have but his course in the rotation of Elders at Ephesus which seems very incongruous to the Office of Timothy I conclude thâ—n that in all probability the Apostles tyed not themselves up to one certain course but in some Churches setled more or fewer Officers as they saw cause and in others governed themselves during life and that at their death they did not determine any form is probably argued from the different customes of several Churches afterwards The third Consideration touching Apostolical practice is concerning the Obligatory force of it in reference to us which I lay down in these terms That a meer Apostolical practice being supposed is not sufficient of its self for the founding an unalterable and perpetual right for that Form of Government in the Church which is supposed to be founded on that practice This is a Proposition I am sure will not be yielded without proving it and therefore I shall endeavour to doe it by a fourfold argument First because many things were done by the Apostles without any intention of obliging any who succeeded them afterwards to do the same As for instance the twelve Apostles going abroad so unprovided as they did when Christ sent them forth at first which would argue no great wisedome or reason in that man that should draw that practice into consequence now Of the like nature was Pauls preaching 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to some Churches receiving no maintenance at all from some Churches as that at Corinth Which instance is a manifest evidence of the monstrous weakness of Discourse in those who would make that example of Paul Obligatory to all Ministers of the Gospel now And while they would by this argument take away their Lands and Tythes instead of them they give them Plaustra convitiorum whole loads of the most reproachful Speeches that ever were given to any but Christ and his Apostles For my part I think the Ministers of the Gospel would want one of the Badges of Honour belonging to their Office were they not thus reproachfully used It is part of the State which belongs to the true Ministers of the Gospel to be followed by such blackmouthed Lacqueyes who by their virulent Speeches are so farre their Friends as to keep them from that Curse which our Saviour pronounceth Wo be unto you when all men speak well of you But let us see how much wooll there is after all this cry too little to cloath the backs of Ministers if such persons might be their Tythe-men but it is well they are so little befriended yea so much opposed by the great Apostle in that singular practice of his For doth he say It was unlawful for him to receive a maintenance from the Churches he preached to Nay doth he not set himself to prove not onely the lawfulness of Ministers taking it but the duty of peoples giving it 1 Cor. 9. from the seventh to the fâ—â—teenth verse giving many pregnant arguments to that purpose Doth he not say that all the Apostles besides him and Barnabas did forbear working and consequenâ—ly had all their necessities supplyed by the Churches Nay doâ—h not Paul himself say that he robbed other Churches taking wages of them to do service to them What Paul turned hireling and in the plainest terms take Wages of Churches Yet so it is and his forbearing it at Corinth was apt to be interpreted as an argument that he did not love them 2 Cor. 11. 11. So far were they from looking upon Paul as a hireling in doing it Paul is strong and earnest in asserting his right he might have done it at Corinth as well as elsewhere But from some prudent considerations of his own mentioned 2 Cor. 11. 12. he forboâ—e the exercise of his right among them although at the same time he received maintenance from other places As for any Divine right of a particular way of maintenance I am of the same Opinion as to that which I am in reference to particular Forms of Church-Government and those that are of another Opinion I would not wish them so much injury as to want their maintenance till they prove it But then I say these things are clear in themselves and I think sufficient grounds for conscience as to the duty of paying on the one side and the lawfulness of receiving it on the other First that a maintenance in general be given to Gospel Ministers is of Divine right else the Labourer were not worthy of his hire nor could that be true which Paul saith that our Lord hath ordained that they which preach the Gospel should live of the Gospel Secondly A maintenance in general being due Lawful authority may determine the particular way of raising it the equity of which way may be best derived from what was the most ancient practâ—ce of the World in dedicating things to God and was approved by God himself among his own people the Jews So that the way of maintenance by Tythes is the most just and equitable way Thirdly It being in the Magistrates power to determine the way of maintenance what is so determined doth bind the Consciences of all subject to that power to an obedience to it for conscience sake In as much as all men are bound thus to obey the Magistrate in all things established by him as Laws and the very same reasons any can plead for disobedience as to this may equally serve for disobedience to any other Lawes made by the Supreme Magistrate This I suppose is the clearest Resolution of that other more vexed then intricate Controversie about the right of Tythes which I have here spoken of by occasion of the mention of the Apostles practice and because it is resolved upon the same principles with the subject I am upon Meer Apostolical practice we see doth not bind because the Apostles did many things without intention of binding others Secondly the Apostles did many things upon particular Occasions Emergencies and circumstances which things so done cannot bind by vertue of their doing them any further then a parity of reason doth conclude the same things to be done in the same circumstances Thus Pauls Coelibate is far from binding the Church it being no universal practice of the Apostles by a Law but onely a thing taken up by him upon some particular grounds not of perpetual and universal concernment So community of
goods was used at first by the Church oâ— Ierusalem as most sutable to the present state of that Church but as far as we can find did neither perpetually hold in that Church nor universally obtain among other Churches as is most clear in the Church at Corinth by their Law-suiâ—â— by the different offerings of the rich and poor at the Lords Supper and by their personal contributions So the Apostles Preaching from house to house was for want of conveniency then of more publick places as free onely for Christians although that practice binds now as far as the Reason doth viz. in its tendency the promoting the work of Salvation of mens Souls Laying on hands for conferring the gifts of the Holy Ghost can never certainly bind where the Reason of it is ceased but may still continue â—s a rite of solemn Prayer and not by vertue of that practice Observing the Apostolical Decrees of abstaining from blood and things strangled and offered to Idols did hold as long as the ground of making them did which was condescension to the Jews although it must be withall acknowledged that the Primitive Christians of the second and third Centuries did generally observe them and the Greek Church to this day and some men of note and learning have pleaded for the necessary observation of them still as Christ. Beckman Steph. Curcellaeus in a Diatriba lately published to this purpose to which Grotius is likewise very inclinable The arguments are too large here to examine although I see not how possibly that place of Paul can be avoided Whatever is set in the shambles eat making no scruple for conscience sakâ— I conclude this with what I laid down at the entrance of this Treatise that where any Act or Law is founded upon a particular reason or occasion as the ground of it it doth no further oblige then the reason or occasion of it doth continue Therefore before an acknowledged Apostolical practice be looked on as Obligatory it must be made appear that what they did was not according as they saw reason and cause for the doing it depending upon the several circumstances of Time Place and Persons but that they did it from some unalterable Law of Chrâ—ist or from some such indispensable reasons as will equally hold in all Times Places and Persons And so the Obligation is taken off from Apostolical practice and laid upon that Law and Reason which was the ground of it Thirdly Offices that were of Apostolical appointment are grown wholly out of use in the Church without mens looking upon themselvs as bound now to observe them As the Widdows of the Churches afterwards from their Office called Deaconnesses of the Church of which number Phoebe was one whom Paul calls the Deaconness of the Church at Cenchrea so both Origen and Chrysostome understand it Of them and their continuance in the Church for some Centuries of years much is spoken by several Writers and resolved by several Councils and yet we see these are laid aside by the pâ—etenders to hold close to Apostolical practice if that binds certainly it doth in its plain institutions if it doth not bind in them how can it in that which is only gathered but by uncertain conjectures to have been ever their practice So that in the issue those who plead so much for the obligatory nature of Apostolical practice do not think it obligatory for if they did how comes this office of Widdows and Deaconesses to be neglected If it be answered that these are not usefull now then we must say that we look upon Apostolical practice to be binding no further then we judge it useful or the reason of it holds which is as much as to say of its self it binds not Fourthly Rites and customs Apostolical are altered therefore men do not think that Apostolical practice doth bind For if it did there could be no alteration of things agreeable thereunto Now let any one consider but these few particulars and judge how far the pleaders for a divine Right of Apostolical practice do look upon themselves as bound now to observe them as Dipping in baptism the use of Love Feasts community of goods the Holy kiss by Tertullian called Signaâ—ulum orationis yet none look upon themselves as bound to observe them now and yet all acknowledge them to have been the practice of the Apostles and therefore certainly though when it may serve for their purpose men will make Apostolical practice to found a divine Right yet when they are gone off from the matter in hand they change their opinion with the matter and can then think themselves free as to the observation of things by themselves acknowledged to be Apostolical Thus we are at last come to the end of this chapter which we have been the longer upon because the main hinge of this controversie did lyâ— in the practice of the Apostles which I suppose now so far cleared as not to hinder our progress towards what remains which we hope will admit of a quicker dispatch We come therefore from the Apostles to the Primitive Church to see whether by the practice of that we can find any thing whereby they looked on themselves as obliged by an unalterable Law to observe any one particular form of Church-Government CHAP. VII The Churches Polity in the ages after the Apostles considered Evidences thence that no certain unalterable Form of Church-Government was delivered to them 1. Because Church-Power did in large as the Churches did Whether any Metropolitan Churches established by the Apostles Seven Churches of Asia whether Metropolitical Philippi no Metropolis either in Civil or Ecclâ—siastical sense Several degrees of inlargemext of Churches Churches first the Christians in whole Cities proved by several arguments the Eulogiae an evidence of it Churches extended into the neighbour Territories by the preaching there of City Presbyters thence comes the subordination between then Churches by degrees inlarged to Diocesses from thence to Provinces The Original of Metropolitans and Patriarchs 2. No certain Form used in all Churches Some Churches without Bishops Scots Goths Some with but one Bishop in their whole Countrey Scythian Aethiopian Churches how governed Many Cities without Bishops Diocesses much altered Bishops discontinued in several Churches for many years 3. Conforâ—eing Ecclesiastical Government to the civil in the extent of Diocesses The suburbicarian Churches what Bishops answerable to the civil Governours Churches power rises from the greatness of Cities 4. Validity of Ordination by Presbyters in places where Bishops were The case of Ischyras discussed instances given of Ordination by Presbyters not pronounced null 5. The Churches prudence in managing its affairs by the several Canons Provincial Synods Codex Canonum HAving largely considered the actions of Christ and the practice of the Apostles so far as they are conceived to have reference to the determining the certain form of Government in the Church our next stage is according to our
propounded method to examine what light the practice of the Church in the ages succeeding the Apostles will cast upon the controversie we are upon For although according to the principles established and â—aid down by us there can be nothing setled as an universal Law for the Church but what we find in Scriptures yet because the general practice of the Church is conceived to be of â—o great use for understanding what the Apostles intentions as well as actions were we shall chearfully pass over this Rubicon because not with an intent to increase divisions but to find out some further evidence of a way to compose them Our Inquiry then is Whether the primitive Church did conceive its self obliged to observe unalterably one individual form of Government as delivered down to them either by a Law of Christ or an universal constitution of the Apostles or else did only settle and order things for Church-government according as it judged them tend most to the peace and settlement of the Church without any antecedent obligation as necessarily binding to observe onely one course This latter I shall endeavour to make out to have been the onely Rule and Law which the primitive Church observed as to Church-government viz. the tendency of its constitutions to the peace and unity of the Church and not any binding Law or practice of Christ or his Apostles For the demonstrating of which I have made choyce of such arguments as most immediately teâ—d to the proving of it For If the power of the Church and its officers did encrease meerly from the inlargement of the bounds of Churches if no one certain form were observed in all Churches but great varieties as to Officers and Diocesses if the course used in setling the power of the chief Officers of the Church was from agreement with the civil government if notwithstanding the superiority of Bishops the ordination of Presbyters was owned as valid if in all other things concernning the Churches Polity the Churches prudence was looked on as a sufficient ground to establish things then we may with reason conciude that nothing can be inferred from the practice of the primitive Church Demonstrative of any one fixed form of Church-government delivered from the Apostles â—o them Having thus by a lâ—ght 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 drawn ouâ— the several lines of the pourtraiture of the Polity of the antient Church we now proceed to fill them up though not with that life which it deserves yet so far as the model of this Discourse will permit Our first argument then is from the rise of the extent of the power of Church-Governours which I assert not to have been from any order of the Apostles but from the gradual encrease of the Churches committed to their charge This will be best done by the observation of the growth of Churches and how proportionably the power of the Governours did increase with it As to that there â—re four observable steps or periods as so many ages of growth in the primitive Churches First when Churches and Cities were of the same extent Secondly when Churches took in the adjoyning Terriâ—ories with the Villages belonging to the Cities Thirdly when several Cities with their Villages did associate for Church-Government in the same Province Fourthly when several provinces did associate for Government in the Roman Empire Of these in their order The first period of Church government observable in the primitive Church was when Churches were the same with Christians in whole Cities For the clearing of this I shall first shew that the primitive constitution of Churches was in a society of Christians in the same City Secondly I shall consider the form and manner of Government then observed among them Thirdly consider what relation the several Churches in Cities had to one another First That the Primitive Churches were Christians of whole Cities It is but a late and novel acception of the word Church whereby it is taken for stated fixed congregations for publike Worship and doubtless the original of it is only from the distinction of Churches in greater Cities into their several 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or publike places for meeting whence the Scotch Kirk and our English Church so that from calling the place Church they proceed to call the persons there meeting by that name and thence some think the name of Church so appropriated to such a society of Christians as may meet at such a place that they make it a matter of Religion not to call those places Churches from whence originally the very name as we use it was derived But this may be pardoned among other the religioâ—s weaknesses of well meaning but lesse knowing people A Church in its primary sense as it answers to the Greek 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 applyed to Christians is a society of Christians living together in one City whether meeting together in many Congregations or one is not at all material because they were not called a Church as meeting together in one place but as they were a Society of Christians inhabiting together in such a City not but that I think a society of Christians might be called a Church where-ever they were whether in a City or Countrey but because the first and chief mention we meet with in Scripture of Churches is of such as did dwell together in the same Cities as is evident from many pregnant places of Scripture to this purpose As Acts 14. 23. compared with Titus 1. 5. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in one place is the same with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the other Ordaining Elders in every Church and ordaining Elders in every City which implyes that by Churches then were meant the body of Christians residing in the Cities over which the Apostles ordained Elders to rule them So Acts 16. 4. 5. As they went through the Cities c. and so were the Churches established in the faith The Churches here were the Christians of those Cities which they went through So Acts 20. 17. He sent to Ephesus and called the Elders of the Church If by the Elders we mean as all those do we now deal with the Elders of Ephesus then it is here evident that the Elders of the Church and of the City are all one but what is more observable ver 28. he calls the Church of that City 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Take heed to your selves and to the flock over which God hath made you overseâ—rs to feed the Church of God Where several things are observable to our purpose first that the body of Christians in Ephesus is called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the flock of the Church and not the several flocks and Churches over which God hath made you Bishops Secondly That all these spoken to were such as had a pastoral charge of this one flock Paul calls them 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and chargeth them 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to do the work of a Pastor towards it So
themselves as one body and met together as occasion served them where either the chief of the Governours of the Church the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in Iustin Martyrs language did perform the solemn part of divine Worship or some other of the Elders that were present with them Is it not strange for men to dream of set-times and Canonical hours and publike places of assemblies at that time when their chief times of meeting were in the night or very early in the morning which Pliny calls conventus antelucanus whence they were called latebrosa lucifugax natio and were fain to make use of wax-lights which from that custome the Papists continue still in their Tapers alwayes burning upon the Altar from what reason I know not unless to shew the darkness of error and superstition which that Church lyes under still and the places of the Christians meetings were generally either some private rooms or some grotts or Cryptae Vaults under ground where they might be least discerned or taken notice of or in the Coemeteria the Martyrum memoriae as they called them where their common assemblies were Thence Pontius Paulinus speaking of the Edict of Valerian against the Christians Iussum est ut nulla conciliabula faciant neque coemeteria ingrediantur Indeed when they had any publick liberty granted them they were so mindful of their duties of publick profession of the Faith as to make use of publick places for the worship of God as appears by Lampridius in the life of Alexander Sâ—verus Quum Christiani quendam locum qui publicus fuerat occupassent contrà popinarii dicerent sibi cum deberi rescripsit melius esse ut quomâ—docunque illic Deus colatur quam popinariis dedatur But in times of persecution it is most improbable that there should be any fixed Congregations and places when the Christians were so much hunted after and inquired for as appears by the former Epistle of Pliny and the known Rescript of Trajan upon it so much exagitated by Tertullian They did meet often it is certain ad confaederandum disciplinam at which meetings Tertullian tells us Praesident probati quique seniores which he elsewhere explains by Consessus ordiâ—is the bench of officers in the Church which did in common consult for the good of the Church without any Cantonizing the Christians into severall distinct and fixed Congregations But after that believers were much increased and any peace or liberty obtained they then began to contrive the distribution of the work among the several Officers of the Church and to settle the several bounds over which every Presbyter was to take his charge but yet so as that every Presbyter retained a double aspect of his Office the one particular to his charge the other generall respecting the Church in common For it is but a weak conceit to imagine that after the setling of Congregations every one had a distinct presbytery to rule it which we find not any obseure footsteps of in any of the ancient Churches but there was still one Ecclesiastical Senate which ruled all the several Congregations of those Cities in common of which the several Presbyters of the Congregations were members and in which the Bishop acted as the President of the Senate for the better governing the affairs of the Church And thus we find Cornelius at Rome sitting there cum florentissimo Clero thus Cyprian at Carthage one who pleads as much as any for obedience to Bishops and yet none more evident for the presence and joint concurrence and assistance of the Clergy at all Church debates whose resolution from his first entrance into his Bâ—shoprick was to do all things communi concilio Clericorum with the Common-Council of the Clergy and sayes they were cum Episcopo sacerdotali honore conjuncti Victor at Rome decreed Easter to be kept on the Lords day collatione facta cum Presbyteris Diaconibus according to the Latine of that age as Damasus the supposed Authour of the lives of the Popes tells us In the proceedings against Novatus at Rome we have a clear Testimony of the concurrence of Presbyters where a great Synod was called as Eâ—sebius expresseth it of sixty Bishops but more Presbyters and Deacons and what is more full to our purpose not onely the several Presbyters of the City but the Country Pastours 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 did likewâ—se give their advice about that business At this time Cornelius tells us there were forty six Presbyters in that one City of Rome who concurred with him in condemning Novatus So at Antioch in the case of Paulus Samosatenus we find a Synod gathered consisting of Bishops Presbyters and Deacons and in their name the Synodal Epistle is penned and directed to the same in all the Catholick Church At the Council of Eliberis in Spain were present but ninteen Bishops and twenty six Presbyters The case between Sylvanus Bishop of Cirta in Africk and Nundinaris the Deacon was referred by Purpuriuâ— to the Clergy to decide it For the presence of Presbyters at Synods instances are brought 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by Blondel in his Apology And that they concurred in governing the Church and not onely by their Counsel but Authority appears from the general Sense of the Church of God even when Episcopacy was at the highest Nazianzen speaking of the Office of Presbyters 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 he knew not whether to call it Ministry or Superintendency and those who are made Presbyters 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 from being ruled they ascend to be rulers themselves And their power by him is in several places called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 they are called by him 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Chrysostome gives this as the reason of Pauls passing over from Bishops to Deacons without naming Presbyters 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Because there is no great matter of difference between a Bishop and Presbyters for these likewise have the instruction and charge of the Church committed to them which words Theophylact Chrysostomes Eccho repeats after him which the Council of Aquen thus expresseth Presbyterorum verô qui praesunt Ecclesiâ— Christi ministerium esse videtur ut in doctrina praesint populis in Officio praedicandi nec in aliquo desides invâ—nti appareant Clemens Alexandrinus before all these speaking of himself and his fellow-Presbyters 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 We are Pastors and Rulers of the Churches And that proper Acts of Discipline were performed by them appears both by the Epistles of the Roman Clergy about their preserving Discipline to Cyprian and likewise by the Act of that Clergy in excluding Marcion from communion with them So the Presbyters of the Church of Ephesus excommunicated Noetus for after they had cited him before them and found him obstinate in his Heresie 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 they put both him and his Disciples out of the Church together Thus we see what the
Rome distinct from the Citie and the Church in it For in that sense 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is opposed to living in the City and so 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 are distinct from the Citizens as in Thucydides and others but I believe no instance can possibly be produced wherein 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 taken in that sense doth comprehend in it both City and Country But being taken in the former sense it was first applyed to the whole Church of the City but when the Church of the City did spread it self into the Countrey then the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 comprehended the Christians both in City and Countrey adjoyning to it Which leads me to the second step of Christian Churches when Churches took in the Villages and Territories adjoyning to the Cities For which we must understand that the ground of the subordination of the Villages and Territories about did primarily arise from hence that the Gospel was spread abroad from the several Cities into the Countreys about The Apostles themselves preachedmost as we read in Scripture in the Cities because of the great resort of people thither there they planted Churches and setled the Government of them in an Ecclesiastical Senate which not only took care for the government of Churches already constituted but for the gathering more Now the persons who were employed in the conversion of the adjacent Territories being of the Clergy of the City the persons by them converted were adjoyned to the Church of the City and all the affairs of those lesser Churches were at first determined by the Governours of the City Afterwards when these Churches encreased and had peculiar Officers set over them by the Senate of the City-church although these did rule and govern their flock yet it alwayes was with a subordination to and dependance upon the government of the City-church So that by this means he that was President of the Senate in the City did likewise superintend all the Churches planted in the adjoyning Territories which was the original of that which the Greeks call 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Latins the Diocess of the Bishop The Church where the Bishop was peculiarly resident with the Clergy was called Matrix Ecclesia and Cathedra principaliâ— as the several Parishes which at first were divided according to the several regions of the City were called Tituli and those planted in the Territories about the City called Paroeciae when they were applyed to the Presbyters but when to the Bishop it noted a Diocess those that were planted in these country-parishes were called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by the Greeks and by the Latins Presbyteri regionarii conregionales forastici ruriâ— agrorum Presbyteri from whom the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 were distinct as evidently appears by the thirteenth Canon of the Council of Neocaesarea where the countrey Presbyters are forbidden to administer the Lords Supper in the presence of the Bishop on the Presbyters of the City but the Chorepiscopi were allowed to do it Salmasiuâ— thinks these 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 were so called as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Episcopi villani such as were only Presbyters and were set over the Churches in Villages but though they were originally Presbyters yet they were â—aised to some higher authority over the rest of the Presbyters and the original of them seems to be that when Churches were so much multiplyed in the Countreys adjacent to the Cities that the Bishop in his own person could not be present to oversee the actions and carriages of the several Presbyters of the countrey Churches then they ordained some of the fittest in their several Dioceses to super intend the several Presbyters lying remore from the City from which office of theirs they were called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 because they did 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 go about and visit the several Churches This is the account given of them by Beza and Blondel as well as others All those several places that were converted to the saith by the assistance of the Presbyters of the City did all make but one Church with the City Whereof we have this twofold evidence First from the Eulogiâ— which were at first parcels of the bread consecrated for the Lords Supper which were sent by the Deacons or Acâ—luthi to those that were absent in token of their communion in the same Church Iustin Martyr is the first who acquaints us with this custome of the Church After saith he the President of the Assembly hath consecrated the bread and wine the Deacons stand ready to distribute it to every one person 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and carry it to those that are absent Damascus attributes the beginning of this custome to Miltiades Bishop of Rome Hic fecit ut Oblationes consecratâ— per Ecclesias ex consecratione Episcopi dirigerentur quod declaratur fermentum So Innocentius ad Decentium De fermento verò quod die Dominica per titulos mittimus c. ut se à nostra communione maxime illa die non judicent separaâ—osâ— Whereby it appears to have been the custome of Rome and other places to send from the Cathedral Church the bread consecrated to the several parish-Churches to note their joint-communion in the faith of the Gospel Neither was it sent only to the several tituli in the City but to the Villages round about as appears by the Question propounded by Dâ—centius although at Rome it seems they sent it only to the Churches within the City as appears by the answer of Innocentius but Albaspinus takes it for granted as a general custome upon some set-dayes to send these Eulogiâ— through the whole Diocess Nam cum per vicos agros sparsi diffusâ— ex â—adem non pâ—ssint sumere communione cuperentque sâ—mper union is Christianâ— Christi corporis speciem quam pâ—ssint maximam râ—tinere solâ—â—nissimis diâ—bus festivis ex matrice per parochias bene dictus mitâ—ebatur panis ex â—ujus pâ—rceptione communitas quae inter omnes fideles â—jusdem Dâ—oecesis intercedere debet intelligebatur repraesentabatur Surely then the Diocesses were not very large iâ— all the several parishes could communicate on the same day with what was sent from the Cathedral Church Afterwards they sent not part of the bread of the Lords-supper but some other in Analogy to that to denote their mutual contesseration in the saith and communion in the same Church Secondly It appears that still they were of the same Church by the presence of the Clergy of the Countrey or the choyce of the Bishop of the City and at Ordinations and in Councils So at the choyce of Boniface Relictis singuli titulis suis Presbyteri omnes aderunt qui voluntatem suam hoc est Dâ—i judicium proloquantur whereby it is evident that all the Clergy had their voyces in the choyce of the Bishop And therefore Pope Lâ—o requires these things as necessary to the
next I shall pitch upon in the French Church is a Triumvirate of three as learned persons in their several wayes as most that Church or any since the reformation hath bred they are Blondel Bochartus and Amyraldus The first is that great Church Antiquary Blondel the known and learned assertor of Ieromes opinion concerning the primitive equality of Presbyters who was likewise of Ieromes mind as to the mutability of that form if the Church saw fit as appears by these words of his speaking of that Form of Ecclesiastical Polity which Hilary speaks of viz. the Eldest Presbyters having the primacy of order above the rest Fac tamen saith he Apostolis non modo non improbantibus sed palam laudantibus ortam ego sanè liberè ab initio observatam Christianisque sive ab Apostolis sive ab eorum discipulis traditam sed ut mutabilem pro usu ac arbitrio Ecclesiae mutandam prout in causâ consimili piae memoriae Crakanthorpius sensis crediderim and not long after Nec concessus capite carentes aut multicipites minùs horremus quam fervidiores Hierarchici quibus indagandum curatiùs incumbit An pastorum cuiquam quocunque ritulo nunâ— gaudeat divino jure 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 eaque perpetua decreta sit An verò in Arbitrio Ecclesiae ipse qui praeest Ecclesiae Spiritus religuerit ut quocunque modo liberet sibi de capite 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 collegia providerent Whereby that most learned Writer for Presbyterie as some have call'd him evidently asserts the mutability of the particular Form of Church Government and that it is left to the prudence and arbitrement of the Church to conclude and determine in what way and manner the Rulers of the Church shall act for moderating the common concernments of the Church The next is the learned and ingenuous Bochartus who ex professo doth assert the opinion I have been pleading thus long in the behalf of in his Epistle to Dr. Morley He having declared himself to be of Ieromes mind as to the Apostles times that the Churches were governed communi consilio Presbyterorum and withall asserting the great antiquity of Episcopacy as arising-soon after the Apostles times and that magno cum fructu as a very usefull Form of Government He subjoyns these words directly overthrowing the Dâ—vine Right of either Form of Government by Episcopacy or Presbyterie Nâ—â— Apostolorum praxim puto vim habuisse legis in rebus suâ— natura 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Proinde tam qui Presbyteralem quam Episcopalem ordinem juris divini esse asserunt videntur 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And therefore asserts that the Form of Government must be determined as that in the State is according to the suitableness of it to the state temper and condition of the people it is intended for The last is judicious Amyraldus whom one deservedly calls One of the greatest wits of this Age. In his proposals for peace with the Lutherans speaking of the different Forms of Church-Government in the several Churches of the Reformation he layes down this for a foundation of union among the several Churches Quando igitur Christus quidem Apostoli hoc diserté constituerunt Debere particulares Ecclesias omnes gubernari à Pastoribus aliquâ regiminis forma temperari quod ipsa rei necessitas flagitat quae verò regiminis ista forma potissimùm esse debeat utrum alii aliis auctoritate praecellant necne neque rei natura definivit neque à Christo aut Apostolis aeque disertè constitutum est id primò in pacificatione statuendum esse videtur ut quo jure hactenus fuerunt Ecclesiarum Evangelicarum Pastores eodem porrò esse pergant neque aliae aliarum statum convellere nitantur That every Church be permitted freely to enjoy its own Form since some kind of Government is necessary in all Churches but no one Form is prescribed by Christ or his Apostles and more fully afterwards to the same purpose Quemadmodum igitur etsi Politiarum formae aliae aliis aptiores ad finem illum Politicum obtinendum accomodatiores esse videntur Deus tamen qui omnis societatis auctor est atque custos noluit omnes hominum coetus eodem jure teneri sed cuique communitati potestatem esse voluit suas leges sibi condendi quas ipse divinâ suâ auctoritate sancit sic dubitandum quidem non est quin ex variis illis administrandarum Ecclesiarum rationibus nonnullae sint aliquanto quam aliae conducibiliores ad eum finem adipiscendum quem religio constitutune habet At voluit tamen sapientissimus indulgentissimusque Deus cuique Ecclesiaejus esse sibi leges eas ferendi quae ad disciplinam spectant ad ordinem conservandum Whereby he grants as much freedome and liberty to every Church to prescribe Laws to its self for the regulating the affairs of the Church as to any State to pitch upon its particular rules and wayes of Government So the Church do in its orders but observe the general rules laid down in Scripture Having thus fully shewed how many of he most eminent Divines of the Reformation have embraced this opinion of the mutability of the Form of Church-Government both in our own and Forraign Churches who were far from being the Proselytes of Erastus it were easie to add Mantissae loco the concurrent judgement of many very learned men as the excellent Hugo Grotius my Lord Bacon Sir Will. Morice and others who have in print delivered this as their judgement but seeing such is the temper of ma ny as to cast by their judgements with an opinion of their partiality towards the Government of the Church I have therefore contented my self with the judgement of Divines most of them of the highest rank since the Reformation whose judgements certainly will be sufficient to remove that prejudice wherewith this opinion hath been entertained among the blind followers of the several parties So much for those who in terms assert the Form of Church-Government not to depend upon an unalterable Law but to be left to the prudence and discretion of every particular Church to determine it according to its suitableness to the state condition and temper of the people whereof it consists and conduceableness to the ends for which it is instituted We come now in the second place to those who though they look upon equality of Ministers as the Primitive Form yet do allow Episcopal Government in the Church as a very lawful and useful constitution By which it is evident that they did not judge the Primitive Form to carry an universal obligation along with it over all Churches ages and places Upon this account our learned Crakanthorp frees all the Reformed Churches from the charge of Aërianisin laid upon them by the Archbishop of Spalato when he licked up his former vomit in his Consilium reditûs Crakanthorps words are these speaking of
non alio modo quam ejus veritate colligati tum vero nullo non Anathemate dignos fatemur si qui erunt qui eam non reverenter sumnia cum obedientia observent If Bishops would but submit themselves to Christ those that would not then submit themselves to them he thinks there is no Anathema of which they are not worthy Iacobus Heerbrandus Divinity Professor at Tubinge professeth it to be the most found constitution of Church-government wherein every Diocess had its Bishop and every Province an Arch-bishop Saluberrimum esset si singulae Provinciae suos Episcopos Episcopi suos Archiepiscopos haberent Hemingius acknowledgeth a disparity among Church Officers and accounts it a piece of barbarism to remove it Quanquam enim potestas omnium eadem est ministrorum quantum ad spiritualem jurisdictionem attiâ—et tamen dispares dignitatis ordines gradus sunt idque partim Jure divino partim Ecclesia approbatione But he qualifies what he had said of Ius divinum by his following words Ecclesia cui Dominus potestatem dedit in aedificationem ordinem ministrorum instituit pro commodo suo ut omnia sint rite ordinata ad instaurationem corporis Christi Hinc Ecclesia purior secuta tempora Apostolorum fecit alios Patriarchas alios Chorepiscopos alios Pastores Catechetas and afterwards Inter ministros agnoscit etiam Ecclesia nostra gradus dignitatis ordines pro diversitate donorum laborum magnitudine ac vocationum diversitate ac judicat Barbaricum esse de Ecclesia hunc ordinem tollere velle Three things he placeth a superiority of Dignity in Excellency of gifts Greatness of labours difference of calling And the truth is the two former ought to be the measure of dignity in the Church the Eminency of mens abilities and the abundance of their labours above others The necessity of a Superintendent or an Inspector over other Ministers is largely discovered by Zepper de Politeid Ecclesiastica who likewise agrees with the former Divines in his judgement of the first institution of Episcopacy Eadem officia in primitiva etiam Ecclesia post Apostolorum tempora in usu manserunt paucis quibusdam gradibus pro illorum temporum necessitate additis qui tamen nihil fere à mente D. Pauli verbi divini alienum habuerunt Whereby he both assert it to be in the power of the Church to add distinct degrees from what were in the Primitive Church and that such so added are no wayes repugnant to the Word of God According to this judgement of their Divines is the practice of the forraign Protestant Churches In Sweden there is one Arch-Bishop and seven Bishops and so in Denmark though not with so great authority in Holstein Pomeren Mecklenburgh Brunswicke Luneburgh Bremen Oldenburgh East Frieseland Hessen Saxony and all the upper part of Germany and the Protestant Imperial Cities Church government is in the hands of Super-intendents In the Palatinate they had Inspectores and Praepositi over which was the Ecclesiastical Consistory of three Clergy men and three Counsellors of State with their President and so they have their Praepositos in Wetteraw Hessen and Anhalt In Transylvania Polonia and Bohemia they have their Seniores enjoying the same power with anclent Bishops So that we see all these Reformed Churches and Divines although they acknowledge no such thing as a divine Right of Episcopacy but stiffely maintain Ieromes opinion of the primitive equality of Gospel Ministers yet they are so far from accounting it unlawfull to have some Church Officers acting in a higher degree above others that they themselves embrace it under different names and titles in order to the Peace Unity and Government of their several Churches Whereby they give us an evident demonstration that they looked not upon the primitive form to be immutable but that the orders and degrees of Ministers is only a Prudential thing and left in the liberty of every particular Church to be determined according to their tendency to preserve the peace and settlement of a Church We come in the last place to those who hold Episcopacy to be the Primitive Form yet not unalterably binding all Churches and places but that those Churches who are without it are truly constituted Churches and Ministers are lawfully ordained by meer Presbyters This is largely proved by Mr. Francis Mason in his excellent Defence of the Ordination of Ministers beyond the Seas to which I refer the Reader Only I shall shew out of him how the State of the Question about the Ius divinum of Episcopacy is formed First If by jure divino you mean that which is according to Scripture then the preheminence of Bishops is jure divino for it hath been already proved to be according to Scripture Secondly If by jure divino you mean the Ordinance of God in this sense also it may be said to be jure divino For it is an ordinance of the Apostles whereunto they were directed by Gods Spirit even by the Spirit of Prophecy and consequently the ordinance of God But if by jure divino you understand a Law and Commandment of God binding all Christian Churches universally perpetually unchangeably and with such absolute necessity that no other form of Regiment may in any case be admitted in this sense neither may we grant it nor yet can you prove it to be jure divino Whereby we see this learned and moderate man was far from unchurching all who wanted Bishops and absolutely declares that though he look on Episcopacy as an Apostolical Institution yet that no unalterable Divine Right is founded thereupon So before him the both learned and pious Bishop G. Downham explains himself concerning the Right of Episcopacy in these remarkable words Though in respect of the first Institution there is small difference between an Apostolical and Divine Ordinance because what was ordained by the Apostles proceeded from God in which sense and no other I do hold the Episcopal function to be a divine Ordinance I mean in respect of of the first Institution yet in respect of perpetuity difference by some is made between those things which be divini and those which be Apostolici juris the former in their understanding being perpetually generally and immutably necessary the latter not so So that the meaning of my defence plainly iâ— that the Episcopal Government hath this commendation above other forms of Ecclesiastical Government that in respect of the first Institution it is a divine Ordinance but that it should be such a divine Ordinance as should be generally perpetually immutably necessarily observed so as no other form of Government may in no case be admitted I did not take upon me to maintain With more to the same purpose in several places of that defence And from hence it is acknowledged by the stoutest Champions for Episcopacy before these late unhappy divisions that ordination performed by Presbyters in cases
proved by some who have undertaken it I know no opinion would bid so saiâ— for acceptance as Scepticism and that in reference to many weighty and important truthâ— for how weakly have some proved the existence of a Deity the immortality of the soul and the truth of the Scriptures by such arguments that if it were enough to overthroâ—â— an opinion to bee able to answer some Arguments brought for it Atheisme it self would become plausible It can be then no evidence that a thing is not true because some Arguments will not prove it and truly as to the matter in hand I am fully of the opinion of the excellent H. Grotius speaking of Excommunication in the Christian Church Neque adâ—am râ—m peculiare praeceptum desideratur eum Ecclestae coetu à Christo semel constituto omnia illa imperata censeri debent sine quibus ejus coeiûs puritas retineri non potest And therefore men spend needless pains to prove an institution of this power by some positive precept when Christs founding his Church as a peculiar Society is sufficient proof hee hath endowed it with this fundamental Right without which the Society were arena sino calce a company of persons without any common tye of union among them for if there bee any such union it must depend on some conditions to bee performed by the members of that Society which how could they require from them if they have not power to exclude them upon non performance 2. I prove the divine original of this power from the special appointment and designation of particular Officers by Iesus Christ for the ruling of this Society Now I say that Law which provides there shall bee Officers to Govern doth give them power to govern suitably to the Nature of their society Either then you must deny that Christ hath by an unalterable Institution appointed a Gospel Ministry or that this Ministry hath no Power in the Church or that their Power extends not to excommunication The first I have already proved the second follows from their appointment for by all the titles given to Church Officers in Scripture it appears they had a Power over the Church as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 All which as you well know do import a right to Govern the Society over which they are set And that this power should not extend to a power to exclude convict Offenders seems very strange when no other punishment can be more suitable to the nature of the Society than this is which is a debarring him from the priviledges of that Society which the offender hath so much dishonoured Can there be any punishment less imagined towards contumacious offenders then this is or that carries in it less of outward and coactive force it implying nothing but what the offender himself freely yielded to at his entrance into this Society All that I can find replyed by any of the Adversaryes of the opinion I here assert to the argument drawn from the Institution and Titles of the Officers of the Church is that all those titles which are given to the Ministers of the Gospel in the New Testament that do import Rule and Government are all to be taken in a Spiritual sense as they are Christs Ministers and Ambassadors to preach his Word and declare his Will to his Church So that all power such persons conceive to lye in those Titles is only Doctrinal and declarative but how true that is let any one judge that considers these things 1. That there was certainly a power of Discipline then in the Churches constituted by the Apostles which is most evident not onely from the passages relating to Offenders in Saint Pauls Epistles especially to the Corinthians and Thessalonians but from the continued Practice of succeeding Ages manifested by Tertullian Cyprian and many others There being then a power of Discipline in Apostolical Churches there was a necessity it should be administred by some Persons who had the care of those Churches and who were they but the severall Pastors of them It being then evident that there was such a Power doth it not stand to common sense it should be implyed in such Titles which in their Naturall Importance do signifie a Right to Govern as the names of Pastors and Rulers do 2. There is a diversity in Scripture made between Pastors and Teachers Ephes. 4. 11. Though this may not as it doth not imply a necessity of two distinct Offices in the Church yet it doth a different respect and connotation in the same person and so imports that Ruling carries in it somewhat more then meer Teaching and so the power implyed in Pastors to be more then meerly Doctrinal which is all I contend for viz. A right to govern the flock committed to their charge 3. What possible difference can be assigned between the Elders that Rule well and those which labour in the Word and Doctrine 1 Timothy 5. 17. if all their Ruling were meerly labouring in the Word and Doctrine and all their Governing nothing but Teaching I intend not to prove an Office of Rulers distinct from Teachers from hence which I know neither this place nor any other will do but that the formal conception of Ruling is different from that of Teaching 4. I argue from the Analogy between the Primitive Churches and the Synagogues that as many of the names were taken from thence where they carried a power of Discipline with them so they must do in some proportion in the Church or it were not easie understanding them It is most certain the Presbyters of the Synagogue had a power of Ruling and can you conceive the Bishops and Presbyters of the Church had none when the Societies were much of the same Constitution and the Government of the one was transscribed from the other as hath been already largely proved 5. The acts attributed to Pastor in Scripture imply a power of Governing distinct from meer Teaching such are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 used for a right to Govern Matth. 2. 6. Revel 12. 5. 19. 15. which word is attributed to Pastors of Churches in reference to their flocks Acts 20. 28. 1 Pet. 5. 2. and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is applyed to Ministers when they are so frequently called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which notes praesidentiam cum potestate for Hesychius renders it by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 at Athens had certainly a power of Government in them 6. The very word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is attributed to those who have over-sight of Churches 1 Cor. 12. 8. by which it is certainly evident that a power more than Doctrinal is understood as that it could not then be understood of a power meerly civil And this I suppose may suffice to vindicate this Argument from the Titles of Church Officers in the New Testament that they are not insignificant things but the persons who enjoyed them had a right to govern the Society over which the
â—RENâ—CUM A VVEAPON-SALVE FOR THE Churches Wounds OR THE DIVINE RIGHT OF Particular forms of CHURCH-GOVERNMENT Discuss'd and examin'd according to the Principles of the law of Nature the positive Laws of God the practice of the Apostles and the Primitive Church the judgment of reform'd Divines Whereby a Foundation is laid for the Churches peace and the accommodation of our present differences Humbly tendered to Consideration By Edward Stillingfleete Rector of Sutton in Bedfordshire The Second Edition With an APPENDIX concerning the power of Excommunication in a Christian Church Let your Moderation be known unto all men the Lord is at hand Phil. 4. 5. Si ad decidendas hodiernaâ— controversias jus divinum à positivo seu Ecclesiastico candidâ— separaretur non videretur de iis quae sunt absolutè necessaria inter pios aut moderatos viros longa aut aeris contentio futura Isaac Casaub. ep ad Card. Perron Multum referâ— ad reâ—inendam Ecclesiarum pacem inter ea quae jure divino praecepta sunt quae non sunt accuratè distinguere Grot. de Imper. sum Potestat circa sacra cap. 11. London Printed for Henry Mortlock at the Phoenix in St. Pauls Church-yard neer the little North door 1662. THE PREFACE TO THE READER I Write not to increase the Controversies of the times nor to foment the differences that are among us the one are by far too many the other too great already My onely design is to allay the heat and abate the fury of that Ignis sacer or Erysipelas of contention which hath risen in the face of our Church by the overflowing of that bilious humour which yet appears to have too great predominancy in the spirits of men And although with the poor Persian I can onely bring a hand full of water yet that may be my just Apology that it is for the quenching those flames in the Church which have caused the bells of Aaron to jangle so much that it seems to be a work of the greatest difficulty to make them tunable And were this an Age wherein any thing might be wondered at it would be matter of deserved admiration to hear the noise of these Axes and Hammers so much about the Temple and that after these nigh twenty years carving and hewing we are so rude and unpolished still and so far from being cemented together in the unity of the Spirit and the bond of Peace May we not justly fear that voyce Migremus hinc when we see the Vail of the Temple so rent asunder and the Church its self made a Partition wall to divide the members of it And since the wise and gracious God hath been pleased in such an almost miraculous manner so lately to abatâ— the Land-flood of our civil intestine Divisions how strange must it needs seem if our sacred Contentions if Contentions may be call'd sacred like the waters of the Sanctuary should rise from the Ankle to the Knee till at last they may grow unpassable Must onely the fire of our unchristian animosities be like that of the Temple which was never to be extinguished However I am sure it is such a one as was never kindled from Heaven nor blown up with any breathings of the Holy and Divine Spirit And yet that hath been the aggravation of our Divisions that those whose duty it is to lift up their voyces like Trumpets have rather sounded an Allarm to our contentious spirits then a Parley or Retreat which had been far more suitable to our Messengers of Peace In which respect it might be too truly said of our Church what is spoken of the Eagle in the Greek Apologue 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Eagle saw her breast was wounded sore She stood and weeped much but grieved more But when she saw the dart was feather'd said Woo's me for my own kind hath me destroy'd It is not so long since that version of the vulgar Latine Psal. 68. 15. inter Domini cleros might have been sadly rendred to lye among the pots and Pierius Valerianus might have met with too many Examples to have increased his Book De Literatorum Infoelicitate and in the next age it might have been true again what Matthew Paris observes of the Clergy in the Conquerours time adeò literaturâ carebant ut caeteris stupori esset qui Grammaticam didicâ—sset But blessed be God who hath freed us from that Daemonium meridianum of Ignorance and Barbarism may we be but as happily delivered from the plague of our divisions and animosities Than which there hath been no greater scandal to the Iews nor opprobrium of our Religion among Heathens and Mahumetans nor more common objection among the Papists nor any thing which hath been more made a pretence even for Atheism and Infidelity For our Controversies about Religion have brought at last even Religion it self into o Controversie among such whose weaker judgements have not been able to discern where the plain and unquestionable way to Heaven hath lain in so great a Mist as our Disputes have raised among us Weaker heads when they once see the battlements shake are apt to suspect that the foundation its self is not firm enough and to conclude if any thing be call'd in question that there is nothing certain And truly it cannot but be looked on as a sad presage of an approaching Famine not of bread but of the Word of the Lord that our lean Kine have devoured the fat and our thin ears the plump and full I mean our Controversies and Disputes have eaten so much out the Life and practice of Christianity Religion hath been so much rarified into aiery Notions and Speculations by the distempered heat of mens spirits that its inward strength and the Vitals of it have been much abated and consumed by it Curiosity that Green-sickness of the Soul whereby it longs for novelties and loaths sound and wholsome Truths hath been the Epidemical distemper of the Age we live in Of which it may be as truly said as ever yet of any that it was saecolum fâ—rtile religionis sterile pietatis I fear this will be the Character whereby our Age will be known to Posterity that it was the Age wherein men talked of Religion most and lived it least Few there are who are content with the Dimensum which God hath set them every one almost is of the Spanish Iesuâ—tes mind Beatus qui praedicat verbum inauditum seeking to find out somewhat whereby he may be reckoned if not among the Wise yet among the Disputers of this World How small is the number of those sober Christians of whom it may be said as Lucian of his Parasites 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 they were not at leisure to be sick of this pica 1 Tim. â— 4. such as longed more to taste of the Tree of Life then of the Tree of Knowledge and as Zenophon speaks of the Persians
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 they consume the fomes morbi the root of the distemper by their serious endeavours after peace and holiness But instead of this the generality of men let all their Religion run up into Bryers and Thorns into Contentions and Parties as though Religion were indeed sacramentum militiae but more against fellow-Christians then the unquestionable hinderances of mens Eternal Happiness Men being very loath to put themselves to the trouble of a Holy Life are very ready to embrace any thing which may but dispense with that and if but listing mens selves under such a party may but shelter them under a disguise of Religion none more ready then such to be known by distinguishing names none more zealous in the defence of every tittle and punctilio that lies most remote from those essential duties wherein the Kingdome of God consists viz. Righteousness and Peace and Ioy in the Holy Ghost And hence all the several parties among us have given such glorious names onely to the outward Government of the Church the undoubted practise of the Apostles the Discipline of Christ the order of the Gospel and account onely that the Church where their own method of Government is observed just as the Historian observes of Brutus and Cassius Ubicunque ipsi essent praetexentes esse Rempublicam they think the Church can never be preserved but in that Vâ—ssel they are imbarked in As though Christ could not have caused his flock to rest sub Meridie unless the Pars Donati had been in the South And from this Monopolizing of Churches to parties hath proceeded that strange uncharitableness towards all who come not up to every circumstance of their way and method which is a piece of Prudence like that of Brutus who when he had raised those flames in the Common-wealth was continually calling Caesar Tyrant Ita enim appellari Caesarem facto ejus expediebat So when men have caused such lamentable Divisions in the Church by their several parties and factions it concerns them to condemn all others beside themselves leâ—t they most of all condemn themselves for making unnecessary Divisions in the Church of God This uncharitableness and ill opinion of all different parties onely gathers the fuel together and prepares combustible matter which wants nothing but the clashing of an adverse party acted upon Principles of a like Nature to make it break out into an open flame And such we have seen and with sadness and grief of heart felt it to be in the Bowels of our own Church and Nation by reason of those violent Calentures and Paroxysms of the spirits of men those heart-burnings and contentions which have been among us which will require both time and skill to purge out those noxious humours which have been the causes of them I know no prescriptions so likely to effect this happy end as an Infusion of the true spirits of Religion and the Revulsion of that extravasated blood into its proper channels Thereby to take men off from their eâ—ger pursuit after wayes and parties Nations and Opinions wherein many have run so far that they have left the best part of their Religion behind them and to bring them back to a right understanding of the nature design and principles of Christianity Christianity a Religion which it is next to a miracle men should ever quarrel or fall out about much less that it should be the occasion or at least the pretence of all that strife and bitterness of spirit of all those comentions and animosities which are at this day in the Christian World But our onely comfort is that whatever our spirits are our God is the God of peace our Saviour is the Prince of peace and that Wisdome which this Religion teacheth is both pure and peaceable It was that which once made our Religion so amiable in the judgement of imrartial heathens that nil nisi justum suadet lene the Court of a Christians Conscience was the best Court of Equity in the world Christians were once known by their 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the bâ—nignity and sweetness of their disposition by the Candour and Ingenuity of their spirits by their mutual love forbearance and condescension towards one another But Aut hoc non est Evangelium aut nos non sumus Evangelici Either this is not the practice of Christianity or it was never calculated for our Meridian wherein mens spirits are of too high an elevation for it If pride and uncharitableness if divisions and strifes if wrath and envy if animosities and contâ—ntions were but the marks oâ— true Christians Diogenesâ—â—â—â—er â—â—â—â—er need light his Lamp at noon to find out such among us But if a Spirit of meekness gentleness and condescension if a stooping to the weakness and infirmities of others if a pursuit after peace even when it flies from us be the indispensable duties and the characteristical notes of those that have more then the name of Christians it may possibly prove a difficult inquest to find out such for the crouds of those who shelter themselves under that glorious name Whence came it else to be so lately looked on as the way to advance Religion to banish Peace and to reform mens manners by taking away their lives whereas in those pure and primitive times when Religion did truly flourish it was accounted the greatest instance of the piety of Christians not to fight but to dye for Christ. It was never thought then that Bellona was a nursing Mother to the Church of God nor Mars a God of Reformation Religion was then propagated not by Christians shedding the blood of others but by laying down their own They thought there were other wayes to a Canaan of Reformation besides the passing through a Wilderness of Confusion and a red Sea of blood Origen could say of the Christians in his time 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 They had not yet learnt to make way for Religion into mens mind by the dint of the sword because they were the Disciples of that Saviour who never pressed Followers as men do Soldiers but said If any man will come after me let him take up his Cross not his sword and follow me His was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 his very commands shewed his meekness his Laws were sweet and gentle Laws not like Draco's that were writ in blood unless it were his own that gave them His design was to ease men of their former burdens and not to lay on more the duties be required were no other but such as were necessary and withall very just and reasonable He that came to take away the insupportable yoke of Iewish Ceremonies certainly did never intend to gall the necks of his Disciples with another instead of it And it would be strange the Church should require more then Christ himself did and make other conditions of her Communion then our Saviour did of Discipleship What possible reason can be assigned or given why such things should not be
sufficient for Communion with a Church which are sufficient for eternal salvation And certainly those things are sufficient for that which are laid down as the necessary duties of Christianity by our Lord and Saviour in his Word What ground can there be why Christians should not stand upon the same terms now which they did in the time of Christ and his Apostles Was not Religion sufficiently guarded and fenced in them Was there ever more true and cordial Reverence in the Worship of God What Charter hath Christ given the Church to bind men up to more then himself hath done or to exclude those from her Society who may be admitted into Heaven Will Christ ever thank men at the great day for keeping such out from Communion with his Church whom he will vouchsafe not onely Crowns of Glory to but it may be aureolae too if there be any such things there The grand Commission the Apostles were sent out with was onely to teach what Christ had commanded them Not the least intimation of any Power given them to impose or require any thing beyond what himself had spoken to them or they were directed to by the immediate guidance of the Spirit of God It is not Whether the things commanded and required be lawfull or no It is not Whether indifferencies may be determined or no It is not How far Christians are bound to submit to a restraint of their Christian liberty which I now inquire after of those things in the Treatise its self but Whether they do consult for the Churches peace and unity who suspend it upon such things How far either the example of our Saviour or his Apostles doth warrant such rigorous impositions We never read the Apostles making Lawes but of things supposed necessary When the Councel of Apostles met at Ierusalem for deciding a Case that disturbed the Churches peace we see they would lay no other burden 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 besides these necessary things Acts 15. 29. It was not enough with them that the things would be necessary when they had required them but they looked on an antecedent necessity either absolute or for the present state which was the onely ground of their imposing those commands upon the Gentile-Christians There were after this great diversities of practice and varieties of Observations among Christians but the Holy Ghost never thought those things fit to be made matters of Lawes to which all parties should conform All that the Apostles required as to these was mutuall forbearance and condescension towards each other in them The Apostles valued not indifferencies at all and those things it is evident they accounted such which whether men did them or not was not of concernment to Salvation And what reason is there why men should be so strictly tied up to such things which they may do or let alone and yet be very good Christians still Without all Controversie the main in-let of all the Distractions Confusions and Divisions of the Christian World hath been by adding other conditions of Church-Communion then Christ hath done Had the Church of Rome never taken upon her to add to the Rule of Faith nor imposed Idolatrous and superstitious practises all the injury she had done her self had been to have avoyded that fearful Schisme which she hath caused throughout the Christian World Would there ever be the less peace and unity in a Church if a diversity were allowed as to practices supposed indifferent yea there would be so much more as there was a mutual forbearance and condiscension as to such things The Unity of the Church is an Unity of love and affection and not a bare uniformity of practice or opinion This latter is extreamly desireable in a Church but as long as there are several ranks and sizes of men in it very hardly attainable because of the different perswasions of mens minds as to the lawfulness of the things required and it is no commendation for a Christian to have only the civility of Procrustes to commensurate all other men to the bed of his own humour and opinion There is nothing the Primitive Church deserves greater imitation by us in then in that admirable temper moderation and condescension which was used in it towards all the members of it It was never thought worth the while to make any standing Laws for Rites and Customs that had no other Original but Tradition much less to suspend men her his communion for not observing them 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as Sozomen tells us They judged it and that very justly a foolish and frivolous thing for those that agree in the weighty matters of Religion to separate from one anothers communion for the sake of some petty Customs and Observations 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 For Churches agreeing in the same Faith often differ in their Rites and Customes And that not only in different Churches but in different places belonging to the same Church for as he tells us many Cities and Villages in Egypt not onely differed from the Customes of the Mother-Church of Alexandria but from all other Churches besides in their publick Assemblies on the Evenings of the Sabbath and receiving the Eucharist after dinner This admirable temper in the Primitive Church might be largely cleared from that liberty they allowed freely to dissenters from them in matters of practice and opinion as might be cleared from Cyprian Austine Ierome and others but that would exceed the bounds of a Preface The first who brake this Order in the Church were the Arrians Donatists and Circumcellians while the true Church was still known by his pristine Moderation and sweetness of deportment towards all its members The same we hope may remain as the most infallible evidence of the conformity of our Church of England to the Primitive not so much in using the same rites that were in use then as in not imposing them but leaving men to be won by the observing the true decency and order of Churches whereby those who act upon a true Principle of Christian ingenuity may be sooner drawn to a complyance in all lawfull things then by force and rigorous impositions which make men suspect the weight of the thing it self when such force is used to make it enter In the mean time what cause have we to rejoyce that Almighty God hath been pleased to restore us a Prince of that excellent Prudence and Moderation who hath so lately given assurance to the World of his great indulgence towards all that have any pretence from Conscience to differ with their Brethren The onely thing then seeming to retard our peace is the Controversie about Church-Government an unhappy Controversie to us in England if ever there were any in the World And the more unhappy in that our contentions about it have been so great and yet so few of the multitudes engaged in it that have truly understood the matter they have so eagerly contended about For the state of the controversie as it concerns
Forraign Churches Calvin and Beza both approving Episcopacy and Diocesan Churches Salmatius c. 3 Those who judge Episcopacy to be the Primitive Form yet look not on it as necessary Bishop Iewel Fulk Field Bishop Downam Bishop Bancroft Bishop Morton Bishop Andrews Saravia Francis Mason and others The Conclusion hence laid in Order to Peace Principles conducing thereto 1. Prudence must be used in Church-Government at last confessed by all parties Independents in elective Synods and Church Covenants admission of Members number in Congregations Presbyterians in Classes and Synods Lay-Elders c. Episcopal in Diocesses Causes Rites c. 2. That Prudence best which comes nearest Primitive practice A Presidency for life over an Ecclesiastical Senate shewed to be that Form in order to it Presbyteries to be restored Diocesses lessened Provincial Synods kept twice a year The reasonableness and easiness of accommodation shewed The whole concluded p. 383. 384. A Weapon-Salve for the Churches Wounds OR The Divine Right of particular Forms of Government in the Church of God discussed and examined according to the Principles of the Law of Nature the Positive Laws of God the Practice of the Apostles and the Primitive Church and the Judgement of Reformed Divines PART I. CHAP. I. Things necessary for the Churches Peace must be clearly revealed The Form of Church-Government not so as appears by the remaining Controversie about it An Evidence thence that Christ never intended any one Form as the only means to Peace in the Church The Nature of a Divine Right discussed Right in general either makes things Lawful or else Due For the former a Non-prohibition sufficient the later an Express Command Duty supposeth Legislation and Promulgation The Question stated Nothing binds unalterably but by virtue of a standing Law and that two-fold The Law of Nature and Positive Laws of God Three ways to know when Positive Laws are unalterable The Divine Right arising from Scripture-Examples Divine Acts and Divine Approbation considered HE that imposeth any matter of Opinion upon the belief of others without giving Evidence of Reason for it proportionable to the confidence of his Assertion must either suppose the thing propounded to carry such unquestionable Credentials of Truth and Reason with it that none who know what they mean can deny it entertainment or else that his own understanding hath attained to so great perfection as to have authority sufficient to oblige all others to follow it This latter cannot be presumed among any who have asserted the freedom of their own understandings from the dictates of an Infallible Chair but if any should forget themselves so far as to think so there needs no other argument to prove them not to be Infallible in their Assertions then this one Assertion that they are infallible it being an undoubted Evidence that they are actually deceived who know so little the measure of their own understandings The former can never be pretended in any thing which is a matter of Controversie among men who have not wholly forgot they are Reasonable Creatures by their bringing probable arguments for the maintaining one part of an opinion as well as another In which case though the Arguments brought be not convincing for the necessary entertaining either part to an unbiassed understanding yet the difference of their Opinions is Argument sufficient that the thing contended for is not so clear as both parties would make it to be on their own side and if it be not a thing of necessity to salvation it gives men ground to think that a final decision of the matter in controversie was never intended as a necessary means for the Peace and Unity of the Church of God For we cannot with any shew of reason imagine that our Supreme Law giver and Saviour who hath made it a necessary duty in all true members of his Church to endeavour after the Peace and Unity of it should suspend the performance of that duty upon a matter of Opinion which when men have used their utmost endeavors to satisfie themselves about they yet find that those very grounds which they are most inclinable to build their Judgements upon are either wholly rejected by others as wise and able as themselves or else it may be they erect a far different Fabrick upon the very same foundations It is no ways consistent with the Wisdom of Christ in founding his Church and providing for the Peace and Settlement of it to leave it at the mercy of mens private judgments and apprehensions of things than which nothing more uncertain and thereby make it to depend upon a condition never like to be attained in this world which is the agreement and Uniformity of mens Opinions For as long as mens faces differ their judgements will And until there be an Intellectus Averroisticus the same understanding in all persons we have little ground to hope for such an Universal Harmony in the Intellectual World and yet even then the Soul might pass a different judgement upon the colours of things according to the different tincture of the several Optick-Glasses in particular bodies which it takes a prospect of things through Reason and Experience then give us little hopes of any peace in the Church if the unity of mens judgements be supposed the condition of it the next inquiry then is how the Peace of the Church shall be attained or preserved when men are under such different perswasions especially if they respect the means in order to a Peace and Settlement For the ways to Peace like the fertile soils of Greece have been oft-times the occasion of the greatest quarrels And no sickness is so dangerous as that when men are sick of their remedy and nauseate that most which tends to their recovery But while Physitians quarrel about the Method of Cure the Patient languisheth under their hands and when men increase Contentions in the behalf of Peace while they seem to Court it they destroy it The only way left for the Churches Settlement and Peace under such variety of apprehensions concerning the Means and Method in order to it is to pitch upon such a foundation if possible to be found out whereon the different Parties retaining their private apprehensions may yet be agreed to carry on the same work in common in order to the Peace and Tranquillity of the Church of God Which cannot be by leaving all absolutely to follow their own ways for that were to build a Babel instead of Salem Confusion instead of Peace it must be then by convincing men that neither of those ways to peace and order which they contend about is necessary by way of Divine Command though some be as a means to an end but which particular way or form it must be is wholly left to the prudence of those in whose Power and Trust it is to see the Peace of the Church be secured on lasting Foundations How neerly this concerns the present Debate about the Government of the Church any one
vacuae observationis superstitioni deputanda as superstitious which are done sine ulliâ—s Dominici aâ—t Apostolici praecepti autoritate without the Warrant of Divine Command Although even here we may say too that it is not meerly the want of a Divine Precept which makes any part of Divine Worship uncommanded by God unlawful but the General Prohibition that nothing should be done in the immediate Worship of God but what we have a Divine Command for However in matters of meer Deceâ—cy and Order in the Church of God or in any other civil action of the lives of men it is enough to make things lawful if they are not forbidden But against this that a Non-prohibition is warrant enough to make any thing lawful this Objection will be soon leavied that it is an Argument ab authoritate negativè and therefore is of no force To which I answer that the Rule if taken without limitation upon which this Objection is founded is not true for although an Argument ab authoritate negativè as to matter of Fact avails not yet the Negative from Authority as to matter of Law and Command is of great force and strength I grant the Argument holds not here we do not read that ever Christ or his Apostles did such a thing therefore it is not to be done but this we read of no Law or Precept commanding us to do it therefore it is not unlawful not to do it and we read of no Prohibition forbidding us to do it therefore it may be lawfully done this holds true and good and that upon this two-fold Reason First From Gods Intention in making known his Will which was not to record every particular fact done by himself or Christ or his Apostles but it was to lay down those general and standing Laws whereby his Church in all Ages should be guided and ruled And in order to a perpetual obligation upon the Consciences there must be a sufficient promulgation of those Laws which must bind men Thus in the case of Infant-Baptism it is a very weak unconcluding Argument to say that Infants must not be baptized because we never read that Christ or his Apostles did it for this is a Negative in matter of Fact but on the other side it is an Evidence that Infants are not to be excluded from Baptism because there is no Divine Law which doth prohibit their admission into the Church by it for this is the Negative of a Law and if it had been Christs intention to have excluded any from admission into the Church who were admitted before as Insants were there must have been some positive Law whereby such an Intention of Christ should have been expressed For nothing can make that unlawful which was a duty before but a direct and express Prohibition from the Legislator himself who alone hath power to reâ—cind as well as to make Laws And therefore Antipaedobaptists must instead of requiring a Positive Command for baptizing Infants themselves produce an express Prohibition excluding them or there can be no appearance of Reason given why the Gospel should exclude any from those priviledges which the Law admitted them to Secondly I argue from the intention and end of Laws which is to circumscribe and restrain the Natural Liberty of man by binding him to the observation of some particular Precepts And therefore where there is not a particular Command and Prohibition it is in Nature and Reason supposed that men are left to their Natural freedom as is plain in Positive Humane Laws wherein men by compact and agreement for their mutual good in Societies were willing to restrain themselves from those things which should prejudice the good of the Community this being the ground of mens first inclosing their Rights and common Priviledges it must be supposed that what is not so inclosed is left common to all as their just Right and Priviledge still So it is in Divine Positive Laws God intending to bring some of Mankind to happiness by conditions of his own appointing hath laid down many Positive Precepts binding men to the practise of those things as duties which are commanded by him But where we find no Command for performance we cannot look upon that as an immediate duty because of the necessary relation between Duty and Law and so where we find no Prohibition there we can have no ground to think that men are debarred from the liberty of doing things not forbidden For as we say of Exceptions as to General Laws and Rules that an Exception expressed firmat regulam in non exceptis makes the Rule stronger in things not expressed as excepted so it is as to Divine Prohibitions as to the Positives that those Prohibitions we read in Scripture make other things not-prohibited to be therefore lawful because not expresly forbidden As Gods forbidding Adam to taste of the fruit of one Tree did give him a liberty to taste of all the rest Indeed had not God at all revealed his Will and Laws to us by his Word there might have been some Plea why men should have waited for particular Revelations to dictate the goodness or evil of particular actions not determined by the law of nature but since God hath revealed his will there can be no reason given why those things should not be lawful to do which God hath not thought fit to forbid men the doing of Further we are to observe that in these things which are thus undetermined in reference to an obligation to duty but left to our natural liberty as things lawful the contrary to that which is thus lawful is not thereby made unlawful But both parts are left in mens power to do or not to do them as is evident in all those things which carry a general equity with them and are therefore consonant to the Law of Nature but have no particular obligation as not flowing immediately from any dictate of the natural Law Thus community of goods is lawful by the law and principles of nature yet every man hath a lawful right to his goods by dominion and propriety And in a state of Community it was the right of every man to impropriate upon a just equality supposing a preceding compact and mutual agreement Whence it is that some of the School-men say that although the Law of Nature be immutable as to its precepts and prohibitions yet not as to its demonstrations as they call them as Do as you would be done to binds always indispensably but that in a state of nature all things are common to all This is true but it binds not men to the necessary observance of it These which they call Demonstrations are only such things as are agreeable to nature but not particularly commanded by any indispensable precept of it Thus likewise it is agreeable to nature that the next of the kindred should be heir to him who dies intestate but he may lawfully wave his interest if he please Now to apply this to
But those judicial Laws which are founded upon common equity to bind still not by virtue of that Sanction but by virtue of common principles of equity which certainly in the present shortness of humane reason cannot be fetched from a clearer Fountain then those Laws which once came from the Fountain of Goodness none of whose constitutions can any ways be supposed to deviate from the exactest rules of Justice and Equity And upon this very ground too some part of the fourth Commandment is abrogated and the other continues to bind still For the reason of the Ceremonial and occasional part is ceased and the reason of what was Moral continues Therefore the School-men say right of the Sabbath day Cultus est à naturâ modus à lege virtuâ— Ã Gratiâ Nature dictates that God should be worshipped the Law informs what day and time to spend in his worship Grace must enable us to perform that worship on that day in a right manner And because the same reason for Gods Worship continueâ— still therefore it is a Precept of the Natural Law that God should be worshipped What time precisely must be spent in Gods Worship as one day in seven though the reason be evident to nature of it when it is made known yet it is hard to conceive that Nature could have found out the precise determination of the time Although I must confess the general consent of Nations as to the seventh part if it were fully cleared would speak fair to be the voice of Nature or at least a tradition received from the Sons of Noah which if so will be an evidence of the observation of the Sabbath before the Children of Israels being in the Wilderness But granting that the seventh part of time was a positive Law of God yet I say it binds immutably because there is as strong a reason for it now as ever and Ratio immutabilis praecepti facit praeceptum immutabile This I take to be the sense of those who distinguish between morale positivum and morale naturale i. e. that some things are so moral that even Nature its self can discover them as that God should be worshipped Other things are so moral that though the reason of them be founded in Nature yet there wants Divine Revelation to discover them to us but when once discovered are discerned to be very agreeable to common principles of reason And these when thus discovered are as immutably obligatory as the other because the reason of them is immutable And of this nature is the determination of the particular time for Gods worship and limitation of it to one day in seven But what was in that Precept meerly occasional as the first and original ground of its limitation to the seventh in order Gods resting on that day from the work of Creation and the further ground of its inforcement to the Jews viz. their deliverance out of Egypt these being not immutâ—ble but temporary and occasional may upon as great ground given and approved of God for that end as is evident by the Apostles practice be sufficient reason of the alteration of the seventh day to the first day of the week By this may briefly be seen how irrationally those speak who say we have no further ground for our observation of the Lords day now then for other arbitrary Festivals in the Church viz. The Tradition of the Church of God I grant the Tradition of the Church doth acquaint us with Apostolical practice but the ground of our observation of the Lords day is not the Churches Tradition but that Apostolical practice conveyed by Universal Tradition which setting aside the Festivals observed upon the Lords days can very hardly be â—ound for any other But supposing Universal Tradition for other Festivals I say here Tradition is not only used as a testimony and instrument of conveyance as in the other case of the Lords day but is it self the only argument and the very ground of the original observation Between which two what a wide difference there is let any rational man judge But for a further clearing this observation we must consider that the reason of the Command which we say is the measure of its obligation must not be fetched from mens uncertain conjectures among whom dreams often pass for reasons but it must be either expressed in the Law its self or deducible by apparent and easie collection from it as is plain in the Decrees of the Apostles about things strangled and offered to Idols where the reason of the Command is plainly implied to wit for present compliance with the Jews and therefore no sooner did the reason of the Command cease but the obligation of it ceased too but of this more afterwards This is one way then to discern the difference between positive Laws as to the obligation of them by the ground and reason of the Command And therefore it is well observed by Divines which further confirms what I now prove that no Command doth bind against the reason of the Command because it is not the words but the sense and reason of a Command which hath the greatest obligatory force Therefore Tully tells us that the ratio juris legislatoris consilium is the best Interpreter of any Law who excellently and largely proves that the reason of the Law is the Law and not the words So much for the first Rule Secondly Another way to know when Positive Laws are immutable is when Gods Will is expresly declared that such Laws shall bind immutably For it being granted on all hands that God may bind us to those things which are left indifferent by the Law of Nature and likewise for what term he please the only inquiry left is to see in his Word whether he hath so bound us or no and if he hath whether he hath left it in mans power to revoke his Laws For as to Positive Laws expresly laid down in Scripture the ground of which is only as the Jews speak 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the will of the King i. e. Gods own pleasure without any reason or occasion of it else expressed or necessarily implied these do bind immutably unless the same Power which commanded them doth again revoke them For we cannot in any wise conceive that the wise God should after the declaring his own will leave it in the power of any corrupt fallible Being to determine or dispence with the obligation of his own Laws Which to do and instead of them to enforce others immediately upon the Consciences of men as standing Laws is an attempt beyond that of the Gyants against heaven or the men at Babel that being only an affectation of reaching heaven but this an actual usurpation of Gods supreme and legislative power and authority But though man hath nor God alwayes reserves to himself a power to relax interpret and dispence with his own positive Laws which imply no repugnancy to his own nature And this
binds necessarily but that rule which makes it a duty to follow it for examples in indifferent things do not bind without a Law making it to be a duty And so it evidently appears that all obligatory force is taken off from the examples themselves and resolved into one of the two former the morall nature of the action or a positive Law And therefore those who plead the obligatory nature of Scripture-examples must either produce the morall nature of these examples or else a rule binding us to follow those examples Especially when these examples are brought to found a New positive Law obliging all Christians necessarily to the end of the world Concerning the binding nature of Apostolicall practice I shall discourse largely afterwards The next thing pleaded for a Divine Right is by Divine Acts. As to this â—t is again evident that all Divine Acts do not constitute such a Right therefore there must be something expressed in those Acts when such a Divine Right follows them whence we may infallibly gather it was Gods intention they should perpetually oblige as is plain in the cases instanced in the most for this purpose as Gods resting on the seventh day making the Sabbath perpetual For it was not Gods resting that made it the Sabbath for that is only expressed as the occasion of its institution but it was Gods sanctifying the day that is by a Law setting it apart for his own service which made it a duty And so Christs resurrection was not it which made the Lords day a Sabbath of Divine Right but Christs resurrection was the occasion of the Apostles altering only a circumstantiall part of a morall duty already which being done upon so great reasons and by persons indued with an insallible spirit thereby it becomes our duty to observe that morall command in this limitation of time But here it is further necessary to distinguish between acts meerly positive and acts donative or legall The former conâ—er no right at all but the latter do not barely as acts but as legall acts that is by some declaration that those acts do conserr right And so it is in all donations and therefore in Law the bare delivery of a thing to another doth not give a legall title to it without express transferring of dominion and propriety with it Thus in Christs delivering the Keys to Peter and therest of the Apostles by that act I grant the Apostles had the power of the Keyes by Divine Right but then it was not any bare act of Christ which did it but it was only the declaration of Christs will conferring that authority upon them Again we must distinguish between a right conferâ—'d by a donative act and the unalterable nature of that Right for it is plain there may be a Right personall as well as successive derivative and perpetuall And therefore it is not enough to prove that a Right was given by any act of Christ unless it be made appear it was Christs intention that Right should be perpetuall if it oblige still For otherwise the extent of the Apostolical Commission the power of working miracles as well as the power of the Keyes whether by it we mean a power declarative of duty or a power authoritative and penall must continue still if a difference be not made between these two and some rule sound out to know when the Right conferr'd by Divine Acts is personall when successive Which rule thus found out must make the Right unalterable and so concerning us and not the bare donative act of Christ For it is evident they were all equally conferr'd upon the Apostles by an act of Christ and if some continue still and others do not then the bare act of Christ doth not make an unalterable Divine Right And so though it be proved that the Apostles had superiority of order and jurisdiction over the Pastors of the Church by an act of Christ yet it must further be proved that it was Christs intention that superiority should continue in their successors or it makes nothing to the purpose But this argument I confess I see not how those who make a necessary Divine Right to follow upon the acts of Christ can possibly avoid the force of The last thing pleaded for Divine Right is Divine approbation but this least of all constitutes a Divine Right For if the actions be extraordinary Gods approbation of them as such cannot make them an ordinary duty In all other actions which are good and therefore only commendable they must be so either because done in conformity to Gods revealed Will or to the nature of things good in themselves In the one it is the positive Law of God in the other the Law of Nature which made the action good and so approved by God and on that account we are bound to do it For God will certainly approve of nothing but what is done according to his Will revealed or natural which Will and Law of his is that which makes any thing to be of Divine Right i. e. perpetually binding as to the observation of it But for acts of meerly positive nature which we read Gods approbation of in Scripture by vertue of which approbation those actions do oblige us in this case I say it is not Gods meer approbation that makes the obligation but as that approbation so recorded in Scripture is a sufficient testimony and declaration of Gods intention to oblige men And so it comes to be a positive Law which is nothing else but a sufficient declaration of the Legislators will and intention to bind in particular actions and cases Thus now we have cleared whereon a necessary and unalterable Divine Right must be founded either upon the Law of Nature or some positive Law of God sufficiently declared to be perpetually binding CHAP. II. Six Hypotheses laid down as the basis of the following Discourse 1. The irreversible obligation of the Law of Nature either by humane or Divine positive Laws in things immediately flowing from it 2. Things agreeable to the Law of Nature may be lawfully practised in the Church of God where there is no prohibition by positive Laws inlarged into 5 subservient Propositions 3. Divine positive Laws concerning the manner of the thing whose substance is determined by the Law of Nature must be obeyed by vertue of the obligation of the natural Law 4. Things undetermined both by the naturall and positive Laws of God may be lawfully determined by the supream authority in the Church of God 5. What is thâ—â— determined by lawfull authority doth bind the consciences of men subject to that authority to obedience to those determinations 6. Things thus determined by lawfull authority are not thereby made unalterable but may be revoked limited and changed by the same authority HAving shewed what a Divine Right is and whereon it is founded our next great inquiry will be How far Church-Government is founded upon Divine Right taken either of these two wayes
reason they that hold any one posture at receiving the Lords Supper necessary as sitting leaning kneeling do all equally destroy their own Christian-liberty as to these things which are undetermined by the Word So a Magistrate when commanding matters of Christian-liberty if in the preface to the Law he declares the thing necessary to be done in its self and therefore he commands it he takes away as much as in him lyes our Christian-liberty And in that case we ought to hold to that excellent Rule of the Apostle Stand fast therefore in the liberty wherewith Christ hath set you free and be not intangled again with the yoke of bondage But if the Magistrate declare the things to be in themselves indifferent but only upon some prudent considerations for peace and order he requires persons to observe them though this brings a necessity of obedience to us yet it takes not away our Christian-liberty For an antecedent necessity expressed in the Law as a learned and excellent Casuist of our own observes doth not necessarily require the assent of the practical judgement to it which takes away our liberty of judgement or our judgement of the liberty of the things but a consequentiall necessity upon a command supposed doth only imply an act of the Will whereby the freedom of judgement and conscience remaining it is inclined to obedience to the commands of a superior Law Now that liberty doth lye in the freedom of Judgement and not in the freedom of Practise and so is consistent with the restraint of the exercise of it appears both in the former case of scandall and in the actions of the Apostles and primitive Christians complying with the Jews in matters of liberty yea which is a great deal more in such ceremonies of which the Apostle expresly saith that if they observed them Christ would profit them Nothing and yet we find Paul himself circumcising Timothy because of the Jews Certainly then however these ceremonies are supposed to be not only mortuae but mortiferae now the Gospel was preached and the Law of Christian-liberty promulged yet Paul did not look upon it as the taking away his liberty at any time when it would prevent scandall among the Jews and tend to the furtherance of the Gospel to use any of them It was therefore the opinion of the necessity of them was it which destroyed Christian-liberty and therefore it is observable that where the opinion of the necessity of observing the Judaicall Rites and Ceremonies was entertained the Apostle sets himself with his whole strength to oppose them as he doth in his Epistles to the Galatians and Colossians Whom yet we find in other places and to other Churches not leaven'd with this doctrine of the necessity of Judaicall Rites very ready to comply with weak Brethren as in his Epistles to the Romans and Corinthians From which we plainly see that it was not the bare doing of the things but the doing them with an opinion of the necessity of them is that which infringeth Christian-liberty and not the determination of one part above the other by the Supream Magistrate when it is declared not to be for any opinion of the things themselves as necessary but to be only in order to the Churches peace and unity Secondly It appears that Liberty is consistent with the restraint of the exercise of it because the very power of restraining the exercise of it doth suppose it to be a matter of liberty and that both antecedently and consequentially to that restraint Antecedently so it is apparent to be a matter of liberty else it was not capable of being restrained Consequentially in that the ground of observance of those things when restrained is not any necessity of the matter or the things themselves but only the necessity of obeying the Magistrate in things lawfull and undertermin'd by the Word which leads to another argument Thirdly Mens obligation to these things as to the ground of it being only in point of contempt and scandall argues that the things are matter of liberty still I grant the Magistrates authority is the ground of obedience but the ground of the Magistrates command is only in point of contempt and scandall and for preserving order in the Church For I have already shewed it to be unlawfull either to command or obey in reference to these things from any opinion of the necessity of them and therefore the only ground of observing them is to shew that we are not guilty of contempt of the power commanding them nor of scandall to others that are offended at our not observing them Tota igitur religio est in fugiendo scandalo vitando contemptu saith our learned Whitaker All our ground of obedience is the avoiding scandall and contempt of authority To the same purpose Pet. Martyr speaking of the obligation of Ecclesiasticall Laws Non obstringunt si removeatur contemptus scandalum So that non-observance of indifferent things commanded when there there is no apparent contempt or scandall do not involve a man in the guilt of sin as suppose a Law made that all publike prayer be performed kneeling if any thing lies in a mans way to hinder him from that posture in this case the man offends not because there is no contempt or scandall So if a Law were made that all should receive the Lords Supper fasting if a mans health calls for somwhat to refresh him before he sins not in the breach of that Law And therefore it is observable which Whitaker takes notice of in the Canons of the Councils of the primitive Church that though they did determine many things belonging to the externall Polity of the Church yet they observed this difference in their Censures or Anathema's That in matteâ—s of meer order and decency they never pronounced an Anathema but with the supposition of â—ppâ—rent contempt and inserted Si quis contrà praesumpserit si quis contumaciter contrà fecerit but in matters of Doctrine or Life fully determin'd by the Law of God they pronounced a simple Anathema without any such clause inserted Now from this we may take notice of a difference between Laws concerning indifferencies in civill and Ecclesiastical matters That in civils the Laws bind to indifferencies without the case of contempt or scandall because in these the publike good is aimed aâ— of which every private person is not fit to judge and therefore it is our duty either to obey or suffer but in Ecclesiasticall constitution only peace and order is that which is looked at and therefore Si nihil contra 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 feceris non teneris illis is the rule here If nothing tending to apparent disorder be done men break not those Laws For the end and reason of a Law is the measure of its obligation Fourthly Mens being left free to do the things forbidden either upon a repeal of the former Laws or when a man is from under
word belonging to sacrificing exta Diâ—s cum dabant porricere dicebant Varro then it was lawfull to open the Courts but again when the sacrifice was offered it was not By which we see as from the light of Nature that what dayes and times whether weekly monthly or Anniversary were designed and appointed as dies Festi for the service of God were to be spent wholly in order to that end and not to give some part to God and take others to themselves as they were wont to do in their sacrifices to offer up some part to the Gods and feast upon the rest themselves as Athenaeus tells us that Conon and Alcibiades offered such Hecatombs to the Gods that they entertained the people upon the remainders of them And from hence we may see how far short of natural light their Religion falls who make no scruple of spending a great part of the dayes devoted to Gods worship in following either their imployments or recreations Which latter seem more directly to impugne the end of such time appointed then the other in as much as recreations tend more to the ratifying mens spirits and evaporating them into lightnesse and vanity and so discomposing them for the duties of spirituall worship then mens serious and lawfull callings do But further we observe among the Romans severall sorts of dayes appointed for publike worship Macrobius reckons up four sorts of them Stative Conceptivae Imperativae Nundinae Stativae were the set festivall dayes observed every year by the whole people and marked for that end in their Fasti. Such were the Agonalia Carmentalia Lupercalia which are marked with red Letters in the Fasti consulares or the Calendarium Romanum by Ios. Scaliger call'd Calendarium Colotianum which may be seen at large in Mr. Selden besides which their other anniversary festivals are there set down which Tertullian saith being all put together Pentecostem implere non poterunt make not up the number of fifty and so not so many as our Lords Dayes in a year are Conceptivae were such festivals as were annually observed but the dayes of the keeping them were every year determined by the Magistrates of the Priests as Latinae Sementivae Paganalia Compitalia Imperativa were such as the Consuls or Praetors did command at their own pleasure Such were their solemn supplications in times of trouble and their dayes of Triumph and Thanksgiving for Victories The Nundinae were those which returned every ninth day and therefore the Letter by which they observed the return of the ninth day was H. as among us Christians G. which because it notes the return of the Lords Dayes we call the Dominical Letter These Nundinae were the days when the Country people brought in their wares into the City to be sold which were anciently observed as festival dayes sacred to Iupiter but by the Lex Hortensia were made Dies fasti for determining the Controversies that might arise among the people in their dealings as the Court of Pye-powder was instituted among us upon the same account So much for the solemnity of time used in the service of God Another evidence of the solemnity of Woâ—ship was the extraordinary care of the Heathens in preparing themselves for it by cleansing and purifying themselves with water for which purpose they had their 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for cleansing their hands and their 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 standing at the porch of their Temples for their whole bodies which custome was generally observed by the Heathens as is very obvious in the severall Writers of their Customs in sacrificing besides which they observed likewise this washing with water by way of lustration and expiation of their faults as Triclinius the Sholiast on Sophocles tells us it was an antient custome when men had murthered others 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to wash their hands in expiation of their guilt as Orestes did in Pausanias after the killing his mother and some think Pilate in the Gospel did so for the same end but his was only to declare his innocency and not to expiate his sin as is observed by many upon that place But however from hence we may take notice of the Spring and Fountain of the Popes Holy-water which was consecrated by Numa long before Alexander 1. to whom Polydore Virgil and others attribute the first use of it in the Christian Church And as the use of it and the manner of sprinkling it is the same among the Papists as it was among the Heathen so likewise the end of it witness the old Rime Hac aqua benedicta deleat mihi mea delicta Which may be sufficiently answered with the Ceâ—sure of a Heathen Ah nimiùm faciles qui tristia crimina caediâ— Tolli flùmineâ posse putatis aquâ Too easie souls who think the spots of blood Can be wash'd out with every watry flood But from this I pass to the solemnity in their Worship it self evidenced by the generall silence commanded in it which appears by Horace's Favete linguis Ovids Ore favent populi nunc cum venit aurea pompa Virgils fida silentia sacris Festus ' s Linguam pascito i. e. coerceto The Egyptians setting Harpocrates his Image in the entrance to their Temples and the Romans placing the Statue of Angerona on the Altar of Volupia The Greeks had their 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which did 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as Iulius Pollux tells us which Plautus calls facere audientiam to command silence much as the Deacons afterwards did in the Primitive Church who were wont to command silence by their Orarium and were thence call'd 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 among the Christians for though 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as applyed to the Bishop and Presbyters did signifie 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to preach yet as it was applyed to the Deacons it implyed only their commanding silence in order to the prayers of the Catechumeni call'd 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as Aristenus observes on Concil Carthag can 106. But this by the way The formula used by the Greeks in commanding silence was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to which Aristonicus the Fidler alluded when in the Market place of Mylassa a Town in Caria he saw many Temples and but few Citizens he cryed out 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 instead of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 But I passe these things over as being commonly known only observing from them the solemnity of their publick devotions which is further seen in their solemn excluding unfit persons from partaking with them in their sacrifices Of which Virgil Ovid Statius Silius Italicus and others among the Romans speak and the Lictor in some Sacrifices stood up saith Festus and cryed aloud Hostis mulier vinctus exesto i. e. extra esto and to keep unfit persons the better ff the Flamines had a Commentaculum a kind of Rod in their hands Among
divide and separate from Church-society so it is an offence on the other side to continue communion when it is a duty to withdraw it For the resolving this knotty and intricate Question I shall lay down some things by way of premisall and come closely to the resolution of it First Every Christian is under an obligation to joyn in Church-society with others because it is his duty to professe himself a Christian and to own his Religion publickly and to partake of the Ordinances and Sacraments of the Gospel which cannot be without society with some Church or other Every Christian as such is bound to look upon himself as the member of a body viz. the visible Church of Christ and how can he be known to be a member who is not united with other parts of the body There is then an obligation upon all Christianâ— to engage in a religious Society with others for partaking of the Ordinances of the Gospel It hath been a case disputed by some particularly by Grotius the supposed Author of a little Tract An semper sit communicandum per symbolu when he designed the Syncretism with the Church of Rome whether in a time when Churches are divided it be a Christians duty to communicate with any of those parties which divide the Church and not rather to suspend communion from all of them A case not hard to be decided for either the person questioning it doth suppose the Churches divided to remain true Churches but some to be more pure then others in which case by vertue of his generall obligation to communion he is bound to adhere to that Church which appears most to retain its Evangelicall purity Or else he must suppose one to be a true Church and the other not in which the case is clearer that he is bound to communicate with the true Church or he must judge them alike impure which is a case hard to be found but supposing it is so either he hath joyned formerly with one of them or he is now to choose which to joyn with if he be joyned already with that Church and sees no other but as impure as that he is bound to declare against the impurity of the Church and to continue his communion with it if he be to choose communion he may so long suspend till he be satisfied which Church comes nearest to the primitive constitution and no longer And therefore I know not whether Chrysostomes act were to be commended who after being made a Deacon in the Church of Antioch by Meletius upon his death because Flavianus came in irregularly as Bishop of the Church would neither communicate with him nor with Paulinus another Bishop at that time in the City nor with the Meletians but for three years time withdrew himself from communion with any of them Much lesse were the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or the Haesitantes as the Latins called them to be commended who after the determination of the Council of Chalcedou against Entyches because of great differences remaining in Egypt and the Eastern Churches followed Zenoes Henoticum and would communicate neither with the Orthodox Churches nor Eutychians But I see not what censure Jâ—â—ome could in â—urr who going into the Diocesse of Antioeh and finding the Churches there under great divisions there being besides the Arian Bishop three others in the Church of Antioch Meletius Paulinus and Vitalis did so long suspend communion with any of them till he had satisfied himself about the occasion of the Schism and the innocency of the persons and Churches engaged in it But if he had withdrawn longer he had offended against his obligation to joyn in Church-society with others for participation of Gospel-Ordinances which is the necessary duty of every Christian. Secondly Every Christian actually joyned in Church-society with others is so long bound to maintain society with them till his communion with them becomes sin For nothing else can justifie withdrawing from such a Society but the unlawfulness of continuing any longer in it Supposing a Church then to remain true as to its constitution and essentials but there be many corruptions crept into that Church whether is it the duty of a Christian to withdraw from that Church because of those corruptions and to gather new Churches only for purer administration or to joyn with them only for that end This as far as I understand it is the state of the Controversie between our Parochiall Churches and the Congregationall The resolution of this great Question must depend on this Whether is it a sin to communicate with Churches true as to essentialls but supposed corrupt in the exercise of discipline For Parochiall Churches are not denyed to have the essentialls of true Churches by any sober Congregational men For there is in them the true Word of God preached the true Sacraments administred and an implicite Covenant between Pastor and People in their joyning together All that is pleaded then is corruption and defect in the exercise and administration of Church order and Discipline Now that it is lawfull for Christians to joyn with Churches so defective is not only acknowledged by Reverend Mr. Norton in his answer to Apollius but largely and fully proved For which he layes down five Propositions which deserve to be seriously considered by all which make that a plea for withdrawing from society with other Churches First A Believer may lawfully joyn himself in communion with such a Church where he cannot enjoy all the Ordinances of God aâ— in the Jewish Church in our Saviours time which refused the Gospel of Christ and the baptism of Iohn and yet our Saviour bids us hear the Scribes and Pharisees sitting in Moses Chair which hearing saith he doth imply conjunctionem Ecclesiae Iudaicae a joyning with the Iewish Church and so with Churches rejecting an article of faith in the Church of Corinth the doctrine of the Reâ—â—â—rection in the Churches of Galatia the doctrine of Ju 〈…〉 ion by faith but the Apostle no-where requires separation on that account from them Secondly A Believer may lawfully joyn in communion with such a Church in which some corruption in the worship of God is tolerated without Reformation As the offering on High-places from Solomon to Hezâ—kiah in the Church of Iuda observation of Circumcâ—sion and the necessity of keeping the Ceremonial Law in the Churches of Galaâ—ia Thirdly A Believer may lawfully joyn himself in communion with such a Church in which such are admitted to Sacraments who give no evident signs of grace but seem to be Lovers of this World which he proves because it is every ones main duty to examine himself and because anothers sin is no hurt to him and therefore cannot keep him from his duty and then by mens coming unworthily non polluitur communio licet minuitur consolatio the communion iâ— not defiled though the comfort of it be diminished He brings instance from the Church of Corinth among whom were many
scandalous and had not repented 2 Cor. 12. 20 21. So in the Jewish Church which lay under great corruptions when our Saviour and his Apostles communicated with it Fourthly Although a Believer joyn with such a Church he is not therefore bound with the guilt nor defiled with the pollutions of others which he proves because it is lawfull to do it and so he contract no guilt by it Fifthly A Believer that hath joyned himself to such a Church is not bound to withdraw and separate from such a Church under pain of guilt if he doth it not because it implyes a contradiction to be lawfull to joyn to such a Church and yet unlawfull to continue in its communion for that speaks it to be a Church and this latter to be no Church and by that he doth imply it to be unlawfull to separate from any Society which is acknowledged to be a true Church Thus for that learned and Reverend man by whom we see that the received Principles of the sober and moderate part of those of that perswasion are not at such a distance from others as many imagine We see then that communicating with a Church not so pure as we desire iâ— no sin by the arguments by him produced And how it should be then lawfull to withdraw from such a Church meerly for purer communion I 〈…〉 stand not This I am sure was not the case of our Churches in their separation from the Church of Rome the main ground of which was the sin of communicating with that Church in her Idolatry and Superstition and the impossibility of communicating with her and not partaking of her sins because she required a profession of her errours and the practise of her Idolatry as the necessary conditions of her communion in which case it is a sin to communicate with her And this leads me now to a closer resolution of the case of withdrawing from Churches in which men have formerly been associated and the grounds which may make such a withdrawing lawfull In order to that we must distinguish between these things First Between corruptions in the doctrine of a Church and corruptions in the practice of a Church Secondly Between corruptions whether in doctrine or practise professed and avowed by a Church and required as conditions of communion in all members of it and corruptions crept in and only tolerated in a Church Thirdly Between non-Communion as to the abuses of a Church and a positive and totall separation from a Church as it is such From these things I lay down these following Propositions First Where any Church is guilty of corruptions both in doctrine and practice which it avoweth and professeth and requireth the owning them as necessary conditions of communion with her there a non-communion with that Church is necessary and a totall and positive separation is lawfull and convenient I have said already that the necessity and lawfulnesse of this departing from communion with any Church is wholly to be resolved by an inquiry into the grounds and reasons of the action it self So that the matter of fact must of necessity be discussed before the matter of Law as to separation from the Church be brought into debate If there be a just and necessary cause for separation it must needs be just and necessary therefore the cause must be the ground of resolving the nature of the â—ction Schism then is a separation from any Church upon any slight triviall unnecessary cause but if the cause be great and important a Departure it may be Schism it cannot be They who define Schism to be a voluntary separation from the Church of God if by voluntary they mean that where the will is the cause of it the definition stands good and true for that must needs be groundless and unnecessary as to the Church it self but if by voluntary be meant a spontaneous departing from communion with a Church which was caused by the corruptions of that Church then a separation may be so voluntary and yet no Schism for though it be voluntary as to the act of departing yet that is only consequentially supposing a cause sufficient to take such a resolution but what is voluntary antecedently that it hath no other Motive but faction and humour that is properly Schism and ought so to be looked upon But in our present case three things are supposed as the causes and motives to such a forsaking communion First Corruption in Doctrine the main ligature of a religious Society is the consent of it in Doctrine with the rule of Religion the Word of God Therefore any thing which tends to subvert and overthrow the foundation of the gathering such a Society which is the profession and practice of the true Religion yields sufficient ground to withdraw from communion with those who professe and maintain it Not that every small errour is a just ground of separation for then there would be no end of separation and men must separate from one another till knowledge comes to its perfection which will only be in glory but any thing which either directly or consequentially doth destroy any fundamental article of Christian faith Which may be as well done by adding to fundamental articles as by plain denying them And my reason is this because the very ratio of a fundamentall article doth imply not only its necessity to be believed and practised and the former in reference to the latter for things are therefore necessary to be known because necessary to be done and not è contrà but likewise its sufficiency as to the end for which it is called Fundamentall So that the articles of faith called Fundamentall are not only such as are necessary to be believed but if they be are sufficient for salvation to all that do believe them Now he that adds any thing to be believed or done as fundamentall that is necessary to salvation doth thereby destroy the sufficiency of those former articles in order to salvation for if they were sufficient how can new ones be necessary The case wil be clear by an Instance Who assert the satisfaction of Christ for sinners to be a fundamentall article and thereby do imply the sufficiency of the belief of that in order to salvation now if a Pope or any other command me to believe the meritoriousnesse of good works with the satisfaction of Christ as necessary to salvation by adding this he destroyes the former as a fundamentall article for if Christs satisfaction be sufficient how can good works be meritorious and if this latter be necessary the other was not for if it were what need this be added Which is a thing the Papists with their new Creed of Pius the fourth would do well to consider and others too who so confidently assert that none of their errours touch the foundation of faith Where there is now such corruption in Doctrine supposed in a Church withdrawing and separation from such a Church is as necessary as the
Praetor Consul Tribune might be appealed to from the sentence of another The originall of Appeals then is that injuries may be redressed and in order to that nature dictates that there ought to be a subordination of Powers one to another lest any injury done through corruption or ignorance of the immediate Judges prove irremediable To which purpose our learned Whitaker saith that Appeals are juris divini naturalis in omni societate admodum necessariae propter multorum judicum vel iniquitatem vel ignorantiam alioqui actum esset de innocente si non liceret ab iniqua sententia appestare So that appeals are founded upon natural right lest men should be injured in any determination of a case by those that have the cognizance of it And in order to a redress of wrongs and ending controversies Nature tells us that Appeals must not be infinite but there must be some Power from whence Appeals must not be made What that should be must be determined in the same manner that it is in Civils not that every Controversie in the Church must be determined by an Oecumenical Council but that it is in the Power of the Supream Magistrate as Supream head in causes Ecclesiastical to limit and fix this Subordination and determine how far it shall go and no further The Determination being in order to the Peace of the Church which Christian Magistrates are bound to look after and see that causes hang not perpetually without Decision And so we find the Christian Emperours constituting to whom Appeals should be made and where they should be fixed as Iustinian and Theodostus did For when the Church is incorporated into the Common-wealth the chief Authority in a Common-wealth as Christian belongs to the same to which it doth as a Common-wealth But of that already It is then against the Law and Light of Nature and the natural right of every man for any particular company of men calling themselves a Church to ingross all Ecclesiastical Power so into their hands that no liberty of Appeals for redress can be made from it Which to speak within compass is a very high usurpation made upon the Civil and Religious rights of Christians because it leaves men under a causeless censure without any authoritative vindication of them from it As for that way of elective Synods substituted in the place of authoritative Power to determine Controversies it is a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which will never be soveraign enough to cure the distemper it is brought for For elective Synods are but like that which the Lawyers call arbitrium boni viri which they distinguish from arbitrium ex compromisso and binds no further then the party concerned doth judge the Sentence equall and just So that this helps us with no way to end controversies in the Church any further then the persons engaged are willing to account that just which shall be judged in their Case Taking then a coercive Power onely for such a one as may authoritatively decide a controvâ—rsie we see what great Reason there is for what the Historian observes Arbitriis ii se debent interponere qui non parenteâ— coercere possunt That all Power of Arbitration should have some juridicall power going along with it to make a finall end of quarrels But that which seems yet more strange to me is this that by those who assert the Independency of particular Congregationâ— it is so hotly pleaded that Christ hath given every particular Congregation a Power over its own Members to determine controversies arising between them but that if one or many of these particular Congregations should erre or break the Rule he hath left no power Authoritatively to decide what should be done in such cases Can we conceive that Christ should provide more for the Cases of particular Persons then of particular Churches And that he should give Authority for Determining one and not the other Is there any more coactive Power given by any to Synods or greater Officers then there is by them to particular Churches which power is onely declarative as to the Rule though Authoritative as to persons where-ever it is lodged Is there not more danger to Gods People by the scandals of Churches then Persons Or did Christs Power of governing his People reach to them onely as particular Congregations Doth not this too strongly savour of the Pars Donati only the Meridies must be rendred a particular Congregationall Church where Christ causeth his Flock to rest But supposing the Scripture not expresly to lay down a Rule for governing many Churches are men outlawed of their natural Rights that supposing a wrong Sentence passed in the Congregation there is no hopes way or means to redress his injury and make his innocency known Doth this look like an Institution of Christ But that which I conceive is the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and the Original of this mistake is that the Churches we read of first Planted in Scripture were onely particular Congregations and therefore there is no proper Church-power beyond them or above them I meddle not with the Antâ—cedent now which is largely discussed by others but the extream weakness of the consequence is that I am here obliged to discover For what a strange shortness of Discourse is it to Argue thus If when there was but one Congregation that Congregation had all Power within its self then when there are more particular congregations it must be so and yet this is the very Foundation of all those Kingdomes of Yvetos as one calls them those sole self-governing congregations When there was but one congregation in a Church it was necessary if it had any Church-power that it must be lodged in that one congregation But when this congregation was multiplyed into many more is it not as necessary for their mutual Government there should be a common power governing them together as a joynt-society Besides the first congregational Church in the New Testament viz. that of Ierusalem could be no particular Organical Church for it had many if not all Universall Officers in it and if they were the fixed Pastours of that Church they could not according to the Principles of those who thus speak Preach to any other congregation but their own by vertue of their Office And so either their Apostolicall Office and Commission must be destroyed if they were Pastors of particular Organical Churches or if their Apostolicall Office be asserted their Pastorship of particular Organicall Churches is destroyed by their own Principles who â—ssert that the Pastor of a Church can do no Pastorall Office out of his own congregation The case is the same as to other Churches planted by the Apostles and govern'd by themselves which two as far as I can find in the New Testament were of an equal extent viz. That all the Churches planted by Apostles were chiefly governed by themselves though they had subordinate officers under them These first Churches then
most eager Disputers of the controversie about Church-Government but how necessary they are to be proved before any form of Government be asserted so necessary that without it there can be no true Church any weak understanding may discern Secondly Supposing that Apostolicall practice be sufficiently attested by the following ages yet unless it be cleared from Scripture that it was Gods intention that the Apostles actions should continually bind the Church there can be nothing inferred that doth concern us in point of Conscience I say that though the matter of fact be evidenced by Posterity yet the obligatory nature of that fact must depend on Scripture and the Apostles intentions must not be built upon mens bare â—urmises nor upon after-practices especially if different from the constitution of things during the Apostles times And here those have somewhat whereon to exercise their understandings who assert an obligation upon men to any form of Government by vertue of an Apostolicall practice which must of necessity suppose a different state of things from what they were when the Apostles first established Governours over Churches As how those who were appointed Governours over particular Congregations by the Apostles come to be by vertue of that Ordination Governours over many Congregations of like nature and extent with that over which they were set And whether if it were the Apostles intention that such Governours should be alwayes in the Church is it not necessary that that intention of theirs be declared by a standing Law that such there must be for here matter of fact and practice can be no evidence when it is supposed to be different from the constitution of Churches afterward But of this more hereafter Thirdly Supposing any form of Government in its self necessary and that necessity not determined by a Law in the Word of God the Scripture is thereby apparently argued to be insufficient for its end for then deficit in necessariis some things are necessary for the Church of God which the Scripture is wholly silent in I say not that every thing about Church-Government must be written in Scripture but supposing any one form necessary it must be there commanded or the Scripture is an imperfect Rule which contains not all things necessary by way of Precept For there can be no other necessity universall but either by way of means to an end or by way of Divine Command I know none will say that any particular form of Government is necessary absolutely by way of means to an end for certainly supposing no obligation from Scripture Government by an equality of power in the Officers of the Church or by superiority of one order above another are indifferent in order to the generall ends of Government and one not more necessary then the other If any one form then be necessary it must be by that of command and if there be a command universally binding whose footsteps cannot be traced in the Word of God how can the Scriptures be a perfect Rule if it fails in determining binding Laws So that we must if we own the Scriptures sufficiency as a binding Rule appeal to that about any thing pleaded as necessary by vertue of any Divine command and if such a Law cannot be met with in Scripture which determines the case in hand one way or other by way of necessary obligation I have ground to look upon that which is thus left undetermined by Gods positive Laws to be a matter of Christian-liberty and that neither part is to be looked upon as necessary for the Church of God as exclusive of the other This I suppose is the case as to particular forms of Government in the Church of God but that I may not only suppose but prove it I now come to the stating of the Question which if ever necessary to be done any where it is in the Controversie of Church-Government the most of mens heats in this matter arising from want of right understanding the thing in question between them In the stating the Question I shall proceed by degrees and shew how far we acknowledge any thing belonging to Government in the Church to be of an unalterable Divine Right First That there must be a form of Government in the Church of God is necessary by vertue not only of that Law of Nature which provides for the preservation of Societies but likewise by vertue of that Divine Law which takes care for the Churches preservation in peace and unity I engage not here in the Controversie Whether a particular Congregation be the first Political Church or no it sufficeth for my purpose that there are other Churches besides particular Congregations I mean not only the Catholick visible Church which is the first not only in order of consideration but nature too as a totum Integrale before the similar parts of it but in respect of all other accidentall modifications of Churches from the severall wayes of their combination together They who define a Church by stated worshipping Congregations do handsomely beg the thing they desire by placing that in their definition of a Church which is the thing in question which is Whether there be no other Church but such particular Congregations Which is as if one should go about to prove that there were no civil Societies but in particular Corporations and to prove it should give such a definition of civill Society that it is A company of men joyned together in a Corporation for the preservation of their Rights and Priviledges under the Governours of such a place It must be first proved that no other company of men can be call'd a civill Society besides a Corporation and so that no other society of men joyning together in the profession of the true Religion can be call'd a Church but such as joyn in particular Congregations To which purpose it is very observable That particular Congregations are not de primariâ intentione divinâ for if the whole world could joyn together in the publike Worship of God no doubt that would be most properly a Church but particular Congregations are only accidental in reference to Gods intention of having a Church because of the impossibility of all mens joyning together for the convenient distribution of Church-priviledges and administration of Gospel-Ordinances For it is evident that the Priviledges and Ordinances do immediately and primarily belong to the Catholick visible Church in which Christ to that end hath set Officers as the Apostle clearly expresseth 1 Corinth 12. 28. for how Apostles should be set as Officers over particular Congregations whose Commission extended to the whole World is I think somewhat hard to understand but for the more convenient participation of Priviledges and Ordinances particular Congregations are necessary This will be best illustrated by Examples We read that Esther 1. 3. King Ahashuerus made a feast for all his Princes and Servants Doubtlesse the King did equally respect them all as a Body in the feasting of them
will be with his Disciples to the end of that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 if we take it for a state of things or the Gospel-dispensation that is as long as the Evangelical Church shall continue For that in Scripture is sometime called The World to come and that Phrase among the Jews of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the world to come is set to express the times of the Messias and it may be the Apostle may referr to this when he speaks of Apostales tasting 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is the force and energy of the Gospel preached whence the Kingdom of God is said to be not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not in word but in power which is the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 spoken of by the Apostle elsewhere the powerfull demonstration of the Spirit accompanying the preaching of the Gospel When Christ is called by the Prophet 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the everlasting Father the Septuagint renders it by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and so the Vulgar Latin Pater futuri saeculi the Father of the World to Come that is the Gospel State and to this sense Christ is said to be made an High Priest 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and the Law to be a shadow 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of good things which should be under the new state of the Gospel And which is more plain to the purpose the Apostle expresseth what was come to passe in the dayes of the Gospel 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the Ages to come where the very word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is used to this sense And according to this importance of the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 some very probably interpret that place of our Saviour concerning the sin against the Holy Ghost that it should not be forgiven 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 neither in the present state of the Iewish Church wherein there is no sacrifice of expiation for contumacious sinners but they that despised Moses Law dyed without mercy so neither shall there be any under the World to come that is the dispensation of Gospel Grace any pardon proclaimed to any such sinners who â—â—ample under foot the blood of the Covenant and offer despight to the Spirit of grace Thus we see how properly the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 may agree here to the Gospel-State and so Christs promise of his Presence doth imply the perpetuity of that Office as long as the Evangelical state shall remain which will be to the Worlds end The third thing whereby to know when positive institutions are unalterable is when they are necessary to the being succession and continuance of the Church of God Now this yields a further evidence of the perpetuity of Officers in the Church of God seeing the Church its self cannot be preserved without the Government and there can be no Government without some to Rule the members of the Church of God and to take care for a due administration of Church-priviledges and to inflict censures upon offenders which is the power they are invested in by the same authority which was the ground of their institution at first It is not conceivable how any Society as the Church is can be preserved without the continuance of Church-Officers among them As long as the Body of Christ must be edified there must be some 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 fitted for the work of the Ministry which is appointed in order to that end For that I suppose is the Apostles meaning in Ephes. 4. 12. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 following the Complutensian copy leaving out the comma between 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which makes as though it were a distinct thing from the former whereas the Original carryes the sense on for otherwise it should have been 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. and those who follow the ordinary reading are much at a loss how to explain that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 coming in so in the midst without dependance upon the former Therefore the vulg Latin best renders it ad consummationem sanctorum ad opus ministerii for the compleating of the Saints for the work of the ministry in order to the building up of the body of Christ and to this purpose Musculus informs us the German version renders it And so we understand the enumeration in the verse before of Apostles Prophets Evangelists Pastors and Teachers not for the persons themselves but for the gifts of those persons the office of Apostles Evangelists Pastors c. which is most suitable to the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the eighth verse He gave gifts to men now these gifts saith he Christ gave to men 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for the fitting the Saints for the work of the Ministry Not as a late Democratical Writer would perswade us as though all the Saints were thereby fitted for this Work of the Ministry for that the Apostle excludes by the former enumeration for are all the Saints fitted for Apostles are all Prophets are all Evangelists are all Pastors and Teachers as the Apostle himself elsewhere argues And in the 8 v. of that chapter he particularly mentions the several gifts qualifying men for several usefull employments in the Church of God the Spirit dividing to every man severally as he will Therefore it cannot be that all the Saints are hereby fitted for this Work but God hath scattered these gifts among the Saints that those who have them might be fitted 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 because God would not leave his Church without persons qualified for the service of himself in the work of the Ministry in order to the building up of the Body of Christ. And by the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 here may be meant no other then those he speaks of in the chapter before when he speaks of the Revelation made 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to his holy Apostles and Prophets and so God gave these gifts for the fiitting the holy Apostles c. for the work of the Ministry It cannot be meant of all so as to destroy a peculiar function of the Ministry for Gods very giving these gifts to some and not to others is an evidence that the function is peculiar For else had the gifts been common to all every Saint had been an Apostle every believer a Pastor and Teacher and then where had the People been that must have been ruled and governed So that this very place doth strongly assert both the peculiarity of the Function from the peculiarity of gifts in order to fitting men for it and the perpetuity of the Function from the end of it the building up of the Body of Christ. Thus I have now asserted the perpetual divine Right of a Gospel-Ministry not only for teaching the Word but administration of Ordinances and governing the Church as a Society which work belongs to none but such as are appointed for it who are the same
with the dispencers of the Word as appears from the titles of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Governours Rulers Pastors all which necessarily imply a Governing power which having been largely proved by others and yeelded by me I pass over CHAP. III. The Question fully stated Not what form of Government comes the nearest to the Primitive practice but whether any be absolutely determined Several things propounded for resolving the Question What the form of Church-Government was under the Law How far Christians are bound to observe that Neither the necessity of superiority nor the unlawfulnesse can be proved thence ANd now I come to the main Subject of the present Controversie which is acknowledging a form of Government necessary and the Governours of the Church perpetuall Whether the particular form whereby the Church must be governed be determined by any positive Law of God which unalterably binds all Christians to the observation of it By Church here I mean not a particular Congregation but such a Society which comprehends in it many of these lesser Congregations united together in one body under a form of Government The forms of Government in controversie the Question being thus stated are only these two the particular officers of several Churches acting in an equality of Power which are commonly called a Colledge of Presbyters or a Superiour Order above the standing Ministry having the Power of Jurisdiction and Ordination belonging to it by vertue of a Divine Institution Which order is by an Antonomasia called Episcopacy The Question now is not which of these two doth come the nearest to Apostolical practice and the first Institution which hath hitherto been the controversie so hotly debated among us but whether either of these two forms be so setled by a jus divinum that is be so determined by a positive Law of God that all the Churches of Christ are bound to observe that one form so determined without variation from it or whether Christ hath not in setling of his Church provided there be some form of Government and a setled Ministry for the exercise of it left it to the prudence of every particular Church consisting of many Congregations to agree upon its own form which it judgdeth most conducing to the end of Government in that particular Church 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Here now we fix our selves and the first thing we do is to agree upon our wayes of resolution of this Question whereby to come to an end of this debate And the most probable way to come to an issue in it is to go through all the wayes whereon men do fix an unalterable divine Right and to see whether any of these do evince a divine Right setled upon a positive Law or no for one of these forms The pleas then for such a divine Right are these Either some formal Law standing in force under the Gospel or some plain Institution of a New Law by Christ in forming his Church or the obligatory nature of Apostolical practice or the general sense of the Primitive Church to which we shall add by way of Appendix the Judgement of the chief Divines and Churches since the Reformation if we go happily through these we may content our selves with having obtained the thing we aim at The first inquiry then is Whether any formal Law of God concerning a form of government for his Church either by persons acting in an equality of Power or subordination of one Order to another under the Gospel doth remain in force or no binding Christians to the observing of it The Reason why I begin with this is because I observe the Disputants on both sides make use of the Pattern under the Law to establish their form by Those who are for Superiority of one Order above another in the government of the Church derive commonly their first argument from the Pattern under the Law Those who are for an equality of Power in the persons acting in government yet being for a subordination of Courts they bring their first argument for that from the Jewish Pattern So that these latter are bound by their own argument though used in another case to be ruled in this Controversie by the Jewish Pattern For why should it be more obligatory as to subordination of Courts then as to the superiority of Orders If it holds in one case it must in the other And if there be such a Law for Superiority standing unrepealed there needs no New Law to inforce it under the Gospel We shall therefore first enquire what foundation there is for either form in that Pattern and how far the argument drawn from thence is obligatory to us now For the practice then in the Jewish Church That there was no universal equality in the Tribe of Levi which God singled out from the rest for his own service is obvious in Scripture For there we find Priests above the Levites the family of Aaron being chosen out from the other families of Cohath one of the three sons of Levi to be employed in a nearer attendance upon Gods Service then any of the other families And it must be acknowledged that among both Priests and Levites there was a Superiority For God placed Eleazar over the Priests Elizaphan over the Cohathites Eliasaph over the Gershonites Zuriel over the Merarites and these are called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Rulers over their several families for it is said of every one of them 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 he was Ruler over the house of his Father Neither were these equal for over Eliasaph and Zuriel God placed Ithamar over Elisaphan and his own family God set Eleazar who by reason of his authority over all the rest is called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Ruler of the Rulers of Levi and besides these there were under these Rulers 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the chief Fathers of the several distinct families as they are called Exodus 6. 25. Thus we briefly see the subordination that there was in the Tribe of Levi the Levites first over them the heads of the Families over them the Rulers or the chief of the heads over them Ithamar over both Priests and Levites Eleazar Over all Aaron the High Priest There being then so manifest an inequality among them proceed we to shew how obligatory this is under the Gospel For that end it will be necessary to consider whether this imparity and Superiority were peculiarly appointed by God for the Ecclesiastical government of the Tribe of Levi as it consisted of persons to be employed in the service of God or it was only such an inequality and Superiority as was in any other Tribe If only common with other Tribes nothing can be inferred from thence peculiar to Ecclesiasticall government under the Gospel any more then from the government of other Tribes to the same kind of government in all civil States We must then take notice that Levi was a particular distinct Tribe of it self and
so not in subordination to any other Tribe for they had the heads of their Fathers as well as others Exodus 6. 25. and although when they were setled in Canaan their habitations were intermixt with other Tribes in their forty eight Cities yet they were not under the government of those Tribes among whom they lived but preserved their authority and government intire among themselves And therefore it was necessary there should be the same form of government among them which there was among the rest The whole body of the Nation then was divided into thirteen Tribes these Tribes into their several families some say seventy which they called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 these Families were divided into so many Housholds 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 their Housholds into persons 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 over the several persons were the several Masters of Families over the several Housholds were the Captains of 1000 and 100 50 10. Over the Families I suppose were the heads of the Fathers And over the thirteen Tribes were the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the chief Fathers of the Tribes of the Children of Israel Numb 32. 28. and we have the names of them set down Numb 34. 17 c. So that hitherto we find nothing peculiar to this Tribe nor proper to it as employed in the service of God For their several Families had their several Heads and Eleazar over them as chief of the Tribe And so we find throughout Numbers 2. all the Heads of the several Tribes are named and appointed by God as Eleazar was The only things then which seem proper to this Tribe were the superiority of the Priests over the Levites in the service of God and the supereminent power of the High Priest as the type of Christ. So that nothing can be inferred from the order under the Law to that under the Gospel but from one of these two And from the first there can be nothing deduced but this that as there was a superiority of Officers under the Law so likewise should there be under the Gospel which is granted by all in the superiority of Priests over Deacons to whom these two answer in the Church of God in the judgement of those who contend for a higher order by divine Institution above Presbyters And withall we must consider that there was under that order no power of jurisdiction invested in the Priests over the Levites but that was in the heads of the Families and ordination there could not be because their office descended by succession in their several Families Those who would argue from Aarons power must either bring too little or too much from thence Too little if we consider his office was typical and ceremonial and as High Priest had more immediate respect to God then men Heb. 5. 1. and therefore Eleazar was appointed over the several Families during Aarons life-time and under Eleazar his son Phinehas Too much If a necessity be urged for the continuance of the same authority in the Church of God which is the argument of the Papists deriving the Popes Supremacy from thence Which was acutely done by Pope Innocentius the third the Father of the Lateran Council who proved that the Pope may exercise temporall jurisdiction from that place in Deuteronomy 17. 8. and that by this reason because Deuteronomy did imply the second Law and therefore what was there written in Novo Testamento debet observari must be observed under the Gospel which according to them is a new Law All that can be inferred then from the Jewish pattern cannot amount to any obligation upon Christians it being at the best but a judicial Law and therefore binds us not up as a positive Law but only declares the equity of the thing in use then I conclude then That the Jewish pattern is no standing Law for Church-Government now either in its common or peculiar form of Government but because there was some superiority of order then and subordination of some persons to others under that government that such a superiority and subordination is no wayes unlawfull under the Gospel for that would destroy the equity of the Law And though the form of Government was the same with that of other Tribes yet we see God did not bind them to an equality because they were for his immediate service but continued the same way as in other Tribes thence I inferr that as there is no necessary obligation upon Christians to continue that form under the Jews because their Laws do not bind us now so neither is there any repugnancy to this Law in such a subordination but it is very agreeable with the equity of it it being instituted for peace and order and therefore ought not to be condemned for Antichristian The Jewish pattern then of Government neither makes equality unlawfull because their Laws do not oblige now nor doth it make superiority unlawfull because it was practised then So that notwithstanding the Jewish pattern the Church of Christ is left to its own liberty for the choyce of its form of Government whether by an equality of power in some persons or superiority and subordination of one order to another CHAP. IV. Whether Christ hath determined the form of Government by any positive Laws Arguments of the necessity why Christ must determine it largely answered as First Christs faithfulness compared with Moses answered and retorted and proved that Christ did not institute any form of Church Government because no such Law for it as Moses gave and we have nothing but general Rules which are applyable to several forms of Government The office of Timothy and Titus what it proves in order to this question the lawfulnesse of Episcopacy shewn thence but not the necessity A particular form how far necessary as Christ was the Governour of his Church the similitudes the Church is set out by prove not the thing in question Nor the difference of Civil and Church Government nor Christ setting Officers in his Church nor the inconvenience of the Churches power in appointing new Officers Every Minister hath a power respecting the Church in common which the Church may restrain Episcoâ—acy thence proved lawfull the argument from the Scriptures perfection answered VVE come then from the Type to the Antitype from the Rod of Aaron to the Root of Iessâ— from the Pattern of the Jewish Church to the Founder of the Christian To see whether our Lord Saviour hath determined this controversie or any one form of government for his Church by any universally binding act or Law of his And here it is pleaded more hotly by many that Christ must do it than that he hath done it And therefore I shall first examine the pretences of the necessity of Christs determining the particular form and then the arguments that are brought that he hath done it The main pleas that there must be a perfect form of Church-government laid down by Christ for the Church of God are from the
comparison of Christ with Moses from the equal necessity of forms of Government now which there is for other Societies from the perfection and sufficiency of the Scriptures all other arguments are reducible to these three Heads Of these in their order First From the comparison of Christ with Moses they argue thus If Moses was faithfull in his house as a servant much more Christ as a Son now Moses appointed a particular form of Government for the Church under the old Testament therefore Christ did certainly lay down a form of Church Government for the New Testament To this I answer first Faithfulnesse implyes the discharge of a trust reposed in one by another so that it is said vers 2. he was faithful to him that appointed him Christs faithfulnesse then lay in discharging the Work which his Father laid upon him which was the Work of mediation between God and us and therefore the comparison is here Instituted between Moses as typical Mediator and Christ as the true Mediator that as Moses was faithfull in his Work so was Christ in his Now Moses his faithfulnesse lay in keeping close to the Pattern received in the Mount that is observing the commands of God Now therefore if Christs being faithfull in his office doth imply the setling any one form of Goverment in the Church it must be made appear that the serling of this form was part of Christs Mediatory Work and that which the Father commanded him to do as Mediator and that Christ received such a form from the Father for the Christian Church as Moses did for the Jewish To this it is said That the Government is laid upon Christs shoulders and all power in his hands and therefore it belongs to him as Mediatour Christ I grant is the King of the Church and doth govern it outwardly by his Laws and inwardly by the conduct of his Spirit but shall we say that therefore any one form of Government is necessary which is neither contained in his Laws nor dictated by his Spirit the main original of mistakes here is the confounding the external and internal Government of the Church of Christ and thence whensoever men read of Christs power authority and government they fancy it refers to the outward Government of the Church of God which is intended of his internal Mediatory power over the hearts and consciences of men But withall I acknowledge that Christ for the better government of his Church and people hath appointed Officers in his Church invested them by vertue of his own power with an authority to preach and baptize and administer all Gospel-Ordinances in his own Name that is by his authority for it is clearly made known to us in the Word of God that Christ hath appointed these things But then whether any shall succeed the Apostles in superiority of power over Presbyters or all remain governing the Church in an equality of power is nowhere determined by the Will of Christ in Scripture which contains his Royal Law and therefore we have no reason to look upon it as any thing flowing from the power and authority of Christ as Mediator and so not necessarily binding Christians Secondly I answer If the correspondency between Christ and Moses in their work doth imply an equal exactnesse in Christs disposing of every thing in his Church as Moses did among the Jews then the Church of Christ must be equally bound to all circumstances of Worship as the Jews were For there was nothing appertaining in the least to the Worship of God but was fully set down even to the pins of the Tabernacle in the Law of Moses but we find no such thing in the Gospel The main Duties and Ordinances are prescribed indeed but their circumstances and manner of performance are left as matters of Christian-liberty and only couched under some general Rules which is a great difference between the legal and Gospel-state Under the Law all Ceremonies and Circumstances are exactly prescribed but in the Gospel we read of some general Rules of direction for Christians carriage in all circumstantial things These four especially contain all the directions of Scripture concerning Circumstantials All things to be done decently and in order All to be done for edification Give no offence Do all to the glory of God So that the particular circumstances are left to Christian-liberty with the observation of general Rules It is evident as to Baptism and the Lords Supper which are unquestionably of divine Institution yet as to the circumstances of the administration of them how much lesse circumstantial is Christ then Moses was As to circumcision and the pass-over under the Law the age time persons manner place form all fully set down but nothing so under the Gospel Whether Baptism shall be administred to Infants or no is not set down in expresse words but left to be gathered by Analogy and consequences what manner it shall be administred in whether by dipping or sprinkling is not absolutely determined what form of words to be used whether in the name of all three persons or sometimes in the Name of Christ only as in the Acts we read if that be the sense and not rather in Christs Name i. e. by Christs authority Whether sprinkling or dipping shall be thrice as some Churches use it or only once as others These things we see relating to an Ordinance of Divine Institution are yet past over without any expresse command determining either way in Scripture So as to the Lords Supper What persons to be admitted to it whether all visible professors or only sincere Christians upon what terms whether by previous examination of Church-officers or by an open profession of their faith or else only by their own tryal of themselves required of them as their duty by their Ministers whether it should be alwayes after Supper as Christ himself did it whether taking fasting or after meat whether kneeling or sitting or leaning Whether to be consecrated in one form of words or several These things are not thought fit to be determined by any positive command of Christ but left to the exercise of Christian-liberty the like is as to preaching the Word publike Prayer singing of Psalmes the duties are required but the particular Modes are left undetermined The case is the same as to Church-governwent That the Church be governed and that it be governed by its proper Officers are things of Divine appointment but whether the Church should be governed by many joyning together in an equality or by Subordination of some persons to others is left to the same liberty which all other Circumstances are this being not the Substance of the thing it self but onely the manner of performance of it 3. I answer That there is a manifest disparity between the Gospel and Jewish state and therefore Reasons may be given why all Punctilioes were determined then which are not now as 1. The perfection and
any such produced and therefore shall see what consequences can be made of a binding Nature To this I say that no consequences can be deduced to make an institution but onely to apply one to particular Cases because Positives are in themselves indifferent without Institution and Divine appointment and therefore that must be directly brought for the making a Positive universally binding which it doth not in its own Nature do Now here must be an Institution of something meerly Positive supposed which in its self is of an indifferent Nature and therefore no consequence drawn can suffice to make it unalterably binding without express Declaration that such a thing shall so bind for what is not in its own Nature moral binds only by vertue of a command which command must be made known by the Will of Christ so that we may understand its Obligatory nature So that both a consequence must be necessarily drawn and the Obligation of what shall be so drawn must be expressed in Scripture which I despair of ever finding in reference to any one Form of Government in the Church 2. If the standing Laws for Church-Government be equally applyable to several distinct Forms then no one Form is prescribed in Scripture but all the standing Lawes respecting Church-Government are equally applyable to several Forms All the Lawes occurring in Scripture respecting Church Government may be referred to these three heads Such as set down the Qualifications of the Persons for the Office of Government such as require a right management of their Office and such as lay down Rules for the management of their Office Now all these are equally applyable to either of these two forms we now discourse of We begin then with those which set down the qualifications of persons employed in Government those we have largely and fully set down by St. Paul in his Order to Timothy and Titus prescribing what manner of persons those should be who are to be employed in the Government of the Church A Bishop must be blamelesse as the Steward of God not self-willed not soon angry not given to wine no striker c. All these and the rest of the Qualifications mentioned are equally required as necessary in a Bishop whether taken for one of a Superiour Order above Presbyters or else only for a single Presbyter however that be if he hath a hand in Church-government he must be such a one as the Apostle prescribes And so these commands to Timothy and Titus given by Paul do equally respect and concern them whether we consider them as Evangelists acting by an extraordinary Commission or as fixed Pastors over all the Churches in their several precincts so that from the Commands themselves nothing can be inferred either way to determine the Question only one place is pleaded for the perpetuity of the Office Timothy was employed in which must now be examined The place is 1 Tim. 6. 13 14. I give thee charge in the sight of God c. that thou keep this commandement without spot unrebukable untill the appearing of our Lord Iesus Christ. From hence it is argued thus The Commandment here was the Charge which Timothy had of governing the Church this Timothy could not keep personally till Christs second coming therefore there must be a Succession of Officers in the same kind till the second coming of Christ. But this is easily answered For first it is no wayes certain what this Command was which St. Paul speaks of Some understand it of fighting the good fight of Faith others of the precept of Love others most probably the sum of all contained in this Epistle which I confesse implies in it as being one great part of the Epistle Pauls direction of Timothy for the right discharging of his Office but granting that the command respects Timothy's Office yet I answer Secondly It manifestly appears to be something personal and not successive or at least nothing can be inferr'd for the necessity of such a Succession from this place which it was brought for Nothing being more evident then that this command related to Timothy's personal observance of it And therefore thirdly Christs appearing here is not meant of his second coming to judgement but it only imports the time of Timothy's decease So Chrysostome 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 So Estius understands it usque ad exitum vitae and for that end brings that Speech of Augustine Tun◠unicuique veniet dies adventûs Domini cum venerit ei dies ut talis hinc exeat qualis judicandus est illo die And the reason why the time of his death is set out by the coming of Christ is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as Chrysostome and from him Theophylact observes to incite him the more both to diligence in his work and patience under sufferings from the consideration of Christs appearance The plain meaning of the words then is the same with that Revel 2. 10. Be thou faithful unto death and I will give thee a Crown of life Nothing then can be hence inferred as to the necessary succession of some in Timothy's Office whatever it is supposed to be Secondly The precepts of the Gospel requiring a right management of the work are equally applyable to either form Taking heed to the flock over which God hath made them overseers is equally a duty whether by flock we understand either the particular Church of Ephesus or the adjacent Churches of Asia Whether by Overseers we understand some acting over others or all joyning together in an equality So exhorting reproving preaching in season and out of season doing all things 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 without rash censures and partiality watching over the flock as they that must give an account Laying hands suddenly on no man rebuking not an Elder but under two or three witnesses And whatever precepts of this nature we read in the Epistles of Timothy and Titus may be equally applyable to men acting in either of these two forms of Government There being no precept occurring in all those Epistles prescribing to Timothy whether he must act only as a Consul in Senatu with the consent of the Presbytery or whether by his sole power he should determine what was the common interest and concern of those Churches he was the Superintendent over Neither doth the Apostle determine at all in those Epistles chiefly concerning Church-government whether upon the removal of Timothy or Titus thence as Evangelists as some pretend or upon their death as fixed Pastors and Bishops as others any should succeed them in the power they enjoyed or no nor in what manner the Pastors of the several Churches should order things of common concernment Which would seem to be a strange omission were either of these two forms so necessary taken exclusively of the other as both parties seem to affirm For we cannot conceive but if the being and right constitution of a Church did depend upon the manner
continued forty dayes In this space of time Iohn removes from Iordan and comes on the other side to Bethabara thither Christ comes to Iohn Iohn not only owns Christ himself but tells his disciples This was he into whose Name he had baptized them Upon this two of Iohn's disciples leave their Master and follow Christ. These two are the first Disciples we ever read our Saviour had whereof the one was Andrew Peters brother and the other probably conceived to be Iohn it being his custom to conceal his name when he speaks of himself Andrew calls his brother Peter Christ next day calls Philip Philip he finds Nathaniel and this as far as we read was the first number of Christs Disciples Here we find two or three gathered together in the Name of Christ and Christ truly in the midst of them These disciples it appears staid with Christ sometime for they went with him to the marriage in Cana and after went up with him to Ierusalem when many professed to be his Disciples from thence he goes into Iudea where he gathers many Disciples and baptizeth them After this he returns with his Disciples by the way of Samaria into Galilee and these Disciples being now again at home in probability did return for their livelyhood to their old employments for some small time Christ having not yet commanded them to forsake all and follow him Not long after about a years space from the first calling them Iesus being in Galilee goes to the lake of Genezareth there he finds Andrew and Peter fishing after the miracle there wrought he then in a more solemn manner calls them to leave their employment for he had designed them for a greater which was to be Fishers of Men. Whereby our Saviour expresseth the care pains diligence design and end of the Ministerial Function he had appointed them for Andrew and Peter presently leave all and follow Christ the like do Iames and Iohn whom they met with a little further upon the shore And now those who were before but as common Disciples are admitted into a higher Order and bred up by Christ as persons designed for an employment of so high a Nature We see here a necessity of making a double call of the Apostles else it were impossible to reconcile the Narration of Iohn with the other Evangelists Therefore Augustine thinks their first being with Christ in Iohn was only for present satisfaction who he was which assoon as they understood and admired they returned to their own Habitations Thomas he makes three several callings of them the first ad agnitionem familiaritatem which is that in Iohn the second ad Discipulatum that spoken of in Luke 5. 1. the third ad adhâ—sionem Matth. 4. 18. Mark 1. 16. But I see no reason to make the story in Luke to be different from that of Matthew and Mark the former some say was vocatio ad fidem a general preparatory call to the latter the latter was vocatio ad munus Apostolicum although they were not chosen to be Apostles till afterwards yet now Christ made them Candidores of the Apostleship amicos interioris admissionis in order to that great employment he had designed them for Further we must take notice that from the time of the Baptism of Iohn the Apostles did generally continue with Christ which appears from the qualification of an Apostle given by Peter at the choyce of Matthias Of those men which have companied with us all the time that the Lord Iesus went in and out among us beginning from the baptism of John unto that same day he was taken up from us The strength of which Tehimony is impregnable for proving that the Apostles did generally continue with Christ after their being called to follow him but that time from the baptism of Iohn must not be taken strictly for many of the Apostles as Matthew c. were not called till some time after About four moneths after Christs more solemn calling of the Apostles at the time of Pentecost as Chemnitius conjectures our Saviour proceeds to a solemn choyce of them into their Office which is described by Luk. 6. 13. after he had prayed the whole night before v. 12. Mark he acquaints us with the ends of Christs choosing them First That they might continually attend upon him the better to be fitted for their employment afterwards which he expresseth when he adds That he might send them out to preach and to give them power over Devils and Diseases to cast out the one and to cure the other Their actual sending out was not say some till half a year after which is the story related by Mat. 10. 1. near a twelve-moneth say others but presently upon their choyce Christ makes the Sermon in the Mount as appears by comparing Luk. 6. 17 20. with Mat. 5. 1. wherein among other things our Saviour takes occasion to declare their duty to them telling them They were the Light of the World c. Which he doth the more to fit them for the discharge of their employment Having thus laid these things together about the Apostles from their first calling to the time of their mission we shall take notice of those things from them which may relate to the Office which the Apostles were called to and to the Government of the Church by them First We here observe that our Saviour no sooner began to preach the Gospel himself but he made choyce of some persons as a peculiar Order of men for the propagation of the Gospel in the World The peculiarity of the Function of a Gospel-Ministry under Christ was we see designed from Christs first publike appearance in his Office he might have left the Apostles in the common order of Disciples had he not intended an office in his Church distinct and peculiar from all other employments and therefore it is observable that Christ did not call the Apostles off from their other employments till he designed to make them Apostles before when they were only private Disciples they did follow their employments at some times still but when he calls them to be Fishers of men be bids them leave all and follow him Secondly We take notice of the admirable wisdom of our Saviour in the choice he made of the Persons for first founding his Church and the means he used to fit them for it The persons were such as were most suitable to his design the means such as were most suitable to the persons The persons were such who by reason of the known meanness of their condition and supposed weakness of abilities were the fittest to convince the World that the Doctrine which they preached was not the product of humane wisdom but the express Image and Character of Divine truth whose nakednesse and simplicity would gain more upon mens belief by the power which accompanied the Preaching of it then the most refined and sublimated Notions of their
home Our Saviour taking the word from common use but applying it in a special manner to a peculiar Sense which is the custome of the Scriptures The Original of the Word properly imports such as are imployed by Commission from another for the dispatch of some businesse in his Name So Casaubon who was sufficiently able to judg of the use of a Greek word In communi Graecorum usu 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 dicebantur certi homines qui negotii gerendi gratiâ magis quam deferendi nuntii aliquò mittebantur And so it is taken Iohn 13. 16. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 He that is sent is not greater then he that sent him Thence Epaphroditus when imployed upon a special message to Paul in the Name of the Churches is called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Philippians 2. 25. which we Translate your Messenger And so Titus and the two other sent to the Church of Corinth to gather their Charity are called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Messengers of the Churches Thence Paul fully renders the Import and Sense of the word Apostle by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 2 Corinth 5. 20. We act as Ambassaduors for Christ. To which purpose it is observable that the Septuagint whose Greek is most followed by the New Testament doe render the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 when it signifies to imploy a Messenger upon special Service by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as 1 King 21. 11. 1 King 12. 18. Exod 4. 30. and the very word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is used in this Sense 1 King 14. 6. where Ahijah saith I am 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 A sad Messenger to thee for thus saith the Lord c. Whereby the full Sense and Importance of the word Apostle appears to be one that is imployed by a peculiar Commission from him that hath authority over him for the doing some special service Thus were Christs disciples called Apostles from the immediate commission which they had from Christ for the discharge of that work which he imployed them in Thence our Saviour makes use of the word sending in the proper and peculiar sense when he gives the Apostles their commission in those remarkable words of Christ to them As the Father hath sent me even so send I you John 20. 21. Whereby our Saviour delegates his power and authority which he had as Doctour of the Church to his Apostles upon his leaving the World not in a privative way so as to destroy his own authority over the Church but in a cumulative way investing them with that authority which they had not before for both Teaching and Governing the Church No Argument then can be drawn for the Right or Form of Church-Government from Christs actions towards his Disciples before the last and full Commission was given unto them because they had no power of Church-government before that time Which will be further cleared if we consider their first sending out spoken of Matth. 10. 1. Mark 6. 7. Luke 9. 1. Several things lie in our way to be observed in reference to this Mission of the Apostles First that though the Apostles had been now for some competent time not onely called to their Office but solemnly chosen to it yet we no where read that they did ever exercise that Office till now they were sent forh by Christ. They remained still at Christs feet learning for their own instruction and fitting themselves for their future imployment and thought it no inconvenience while they lay for a wind to lay in sufficient lading and provision for their voyage Baptize indeed they did before Ioh. 4. 2. but that I suppose was done by them by an immediate present Order from Christ himself being by as the chief in the action thence Christ in one place is said to baptize Ioh. 3. 22. and yet he is said not to baptize but his Disciples Ioh. 4. 2. Christ did it authoritatively the Disciples ministerially Yet if we should grant the Disciples did then baptize as private men after the received custome of the Jews among whom onely a Confessus trium was requisite to Baptize a proselyte this doth not at all take off from the peculiarity of a Function both to Preach and Baptize because as yet the Gospel-Ministry was not instituted and therefore what might be lawfull before restraint doth not follow it should be so after when all those scattered rayes and beam which were dispersed abroad before were gathered into the Ministerial Office upon Christs appointing it as that great Hemisphere of Light in the creation was after swallowed up in the body of the Sun But now were the Apostles first sent out to Preach and now God first begins to null the Jewish Ministry and set up another instead of it and makes good that threatning That he was against the Shepherds and would require the flock at their hand and cause them to cease to feed the Flock c. Here then we have the first Exercise of the Apostles Ministry for which we see besides their former call and choice particular mission was after necessary Secondly we observe that the imployment Christ sent them upon now was onely a Temporary imployment confined as to work and place and not the full Apostolicall work The want of considering and understanding this hath been the ground of very many mistakes among Men when they argue from the Occasional Precepts here given the Apostles as from a standing perpetual Rule for a Gospel-Ministry Whereas our Saviour onely suited these instructions to the present case and the nature and condition of the Apostles present imployment which was not to preach the Gospel up and down themselves but to be as so many Iohn Baptists to call people to the hearing of Christ himself and therefore the Doctrine they were to Preach was the same with his The Kingdome of Heaven is at hand whereby it appears their Doctrine was only preparatory to Christ it being onely to raise up higher expectations of the Gospel-state under the Messias and these were they whom the King now sent into the high-wayes to invite men to the marriage Feast and to bid them to come in to him This was the only present imployment of the Apostles in their first mission in which they were confined to the Cities of Iudea that they might have the first refusal of the Gospel-Offers This mission then being occasional limited and temporary can yield no Foundation for any thing perpetual to be built upon it Thirdly we observe that those whom Christ imploied in the first dispersing of the Gospel abroad were furnished with arguments sufficient to evince not onely the credibility but the certain truth of what they preached Therefore Christ when he now sent them out gave them 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not only a meer power to work miracles but a right conferrèd on them to do it as the Apostles of Christ. These were the Credentials which the Apostles carried along with them to shew
from whom they derived their power and by whose authority they acted And these were the most suitable to them as making it appear that a Divine presence went along with them and therefore they could not salsifie to the world in what they Declared unto them which was the best way for them to evidence the Truth of their Doctrine because it was not to be discovered by the Evidence of the things themselves but it depended upon the Testimony of the Authour and therefore the onely way to confirm the truth of the Doctrine was to confirm the credibility of the Authour which was best done by doing something above what the power of nature could reach unto And this was the prerogative of the Apostles in their first mission above Iohn the Baptist For of him it is said that he did no miracle Fourthly we observe that the Apostles in this mission were invested in no power over the Church nor in any Superiority of Order one over another The first is evident because Christ did not now send them abroad to gather Churches but onely to call persons to the Doctrine of the Messias and while Christ was in the World among them he retained all Church power and authority in his own hand When this temporary mission expired the Apostles lived as private persons still under Christs Tutorage and we never read them acting in the least as Church-Officers all that while Which may appear from this one argument because all the time of our Saviours being in the World he never made a total separation from the Iewish Church but frequented with his Disciples the Temple worship and Service to the last although he super-added many Gospel Observations to those of the Law And therefore when no Churches were gathered the Apostles could have no Church power over them All that can be pleaded then in order to Church-Government from the consideration of the Form of Government as setled by our Saviour must be either from a supposed inequality among the Apostles themselves or their superiority over the LXX Disciples or from some Rules laid down by Christ in order to the Government of his Church of which two are the most insisted on Matthew 20. 25. Matth. 18. 17. Of these in their Order The first argument drawn for an established form of Government in the Church from the state of the Apostles under Christ is from a supposed inequality among the Apostles and the superiority of one as Monarch of the Church which is the Papists Plea from Saint Peter as the chief and head of the Apostles Whose loud Exclamations for Saint Peters authority aâ—â— much of the same nature with those of Demetrius the Silver-Smith at Ephesus with his fellow craftsmen who cried up Great is Diana of the Ephesians not from the honor they bore to her as Diana but from the gain which came to them from her worship at Ephesus But I dispute not now the entail of Saint Peters power what ever it was to the Roman Bishop but I onely inquire into the Pleas drawn for his authority from the Scriptures which are written in so small a character that without the spectacles of an implicite Faith they will scarce appear legible to the Eyes of men For what though Christ changed Saint Peters name must it therefore follow that Christ baptized him Monarch of his Church Were not Iohn and Iames called by Christ Boanerges and yet who thinks that those sons of Thunder must therefore overturn all other power but their own Christ gave them new names to shew his own authority over them and not their authority over others to be as Monitors of their Duty and not as Instruments to convey power So Chrysostome speaks of the very name Peter given to Simon it was to shew him his duty of being fixed and stable in the Faith of Christ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 this name might be as a string upon his finger a continual remembrancer of his duty And likewise I conceive as an incouragement to him after his fall that he should recover his former stability again else it should seem strange that he alone of the Apostles should have his name from firmness and stability who fell the soonest and the foulest of any of the Apostles unlesse it were 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which would be worse Divinity then Rhetorick The change then of St Peters name imports no such Universall Power neither from the change nor from the name But why then hath Saint Peter the honour to be named first of all the Apostles First it seems to be implyed as an honour given to Peter above the rest But doth all honour carry an Universal power along with it there may be order certainly among equals and there may be first second and third c. where there is no imparity and jurisdiction in the first over all the rest Primacy of Order as among equals I know none will deny Saint Peter A Primacy of Power as over Inferiours I know none will grant but such as have subdued their Reason to their Passion and Interest Nay a further Order then of mâ—er place may without danger be attributed to him A Primacy in Order of Time as being of the first called and it may be the first who adhered to Christ in Order of Age of which Ierome aetati delatum quia Petrus senior erat speaking of Peter and Iohn nay yet higher some Order of Dignity too in regard of his 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which the Greek Fathers speak so much of the servency and heat of his spirit whence by Eusebius he is called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Prolocutor among the Apostles who was therefore most forward to inquire most ready to answer which Chrysostome elegantly calls 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 alluding to the name 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which are frequently given to Peter by the Fathers which import no more then praesultor in choreâ he that that led the dance among the Disciples but his being 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 implies no Superiority of Power For Dyonys Haliarnass calls Appius Claâ—dius 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 whereas all know that the Decemviri had an equality of power among themselves Neither doth his being as the mouth of the Disciples imply his power For Aaron was a mouth to Moses but Moses was Aarons Master Neither yet doth this Primacy of Order alwayes hold in reference to Peter For although generally he is named first of the Aposties as Matthew 10. 2. Mark 3. 16. Acts 1. 13. Mark 1. 36. Luk 8. 45. Acts 2. 14. 37. Yet in other places of Scripture we finde other Apostles set in Order before him as Iames Galat. 2. 9. Paul and Apollos and others 1 Cor. 3. 22. 1 Cor. 1. 12. 9. 5. No Argument then can be drawn hence if it would hold but onely a Primacy of Order and yet even that fails too in the Scriptures changing of the Order so often
there is not the least evidence or foundation in Reason or Scripture for it For the LXX did not derive their power from the Apostles but immediately from Christ they enjoyed the same priviledges were sent upon the same message making way for Christs entertainment in the several Cities they went to yea all things were parallel between them and the Apostles in their mission unlesse any difference be made in the Cities they went to and their number So that there is no superiority of office in the Apostles above the LXX nor of power and jurisdiction over them their Commissions being the same And it seems most probable that both their missions were only temporary and after this the LXX remained in the nature of private Disciples till they were sent abroad by a new Commission after the Resurrection for preaching the Gospel and planting Churches For we see that the Apostles themselves were only Probationers till Christ solemnly authorized them for their Apostolical employment Matth. 28. 18. Iohn 20. 21. when their full Commissions were granted to them and then indeed they acted with a plenitude of power as Governours of the Church but not before Nothing can be inferred then for any necessary standing Rule for Church-government from any comparison between the Apostles and the LXX during the life of Christ because both their missiors were temporary and occasional Only we see that because Christ did keep up the number of the twelve so strictly that as the LXX were a distinct number from them so when one was dead another was to be chosen in his stead which had been needlesse if they had not been a distinct Order and Colledge by themselves it is thence evident that the Apostolical power was a superiour power to any in the Church and that such an inequality in Church-Officers as was between them and particular Pastors of Churches is not contrary to what our Saviour saith when he forbids that dominion and authority in his Disciples which was exercised by the Kings of the earth Matthew 20. 25. Luke 22. 25. which places because they are brought by some to take away all inequality among Church-Officers I shall so far examine the meaning of them as they are conceived to have any influence thereupon First then I say that it is not only the abuse of civil power which our Saviour forbids his Disciples but the exercise of any such power as that is And therefore the Papists are mistaken when from the words of Luke Vos autem non sic they conclude All power is not forbidden but only such a tyrannical power as is there spoken of For those words are not a limitation and modification of the power spoken of but a total prohibition of it for first the comparison is not between the Apostles and Tyrants but between them and Princes yea such as Luke câ—lls 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Indeed had Christ said The Kings of the earth abuse their authority vos autem non sic then it would have been onely a limitation of the exercise of power but the meer exercise of civil authority being spoken of before and then it being subjoyned but you not so it plainly implyes a forbidding of the power spoken of in the persons spoken to But say they the words used in Matthew are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which import the abuse of their power which is forbidden But I answer first in Luke it is otherwise for there it is the simple 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 when it follows 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 So that if the abuse be forbidden in one the use is in the other but secondly 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by the LXX is used frequently for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is often rendred by that word as Psalm 72. 7. He shall have dominion 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Psalm 110. 2. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Rule thou in the midst of thine enemies in both which places it is spoken of christs Kingdom So in Genesis 1. 28. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Replenish the earth and have dominion over it In all which places it is used simply for Dominion and not for Tyrannical Power It is not then the abuse of civil Power but the use of it which is here forbidden which will be more evident secondly from the importance of the phrase 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which answers to the Hebrew 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and simply denyes what went before as when Cain expresseth his fear of being kill'd Genesis 4. 14. The Septuagint render Gods answer by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 whereby is not denyed only the manner of his death to be as Abels was but it is simply denyed and so Psalm 1. 4. the LXX render 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the wicked are not so So when Christ saith Matthew 19. 8. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 from the beginning it was not so it imports an absolute denyal of giving bills of divorce from the beginning Thirdly This no wayes answers to the scope of the Apostles contention which was meerly about Primacy and Power and not at all about the abuse of this Power So that by this place all affectation and use of a civil co active external power is forbidden to the Officers of the Church the power of the Church being only a directive voluntary power and is rather a Ministry then a Power as our Saviour expresseth there Matthew 20. 26. Luke 22. 26. But having thus excluded all Civil Power from the Governours of the Church as such I say secondly That this place doth no wayes imply a prohibition of all inequality among the Governours of the Church which is abundantly cleared by this reason because by the acknowledgement of all parties the Apostles had a Superiour power over the ordinary Pastors of Churches Now if the exercise of all Superiority had been forbidden this must have been forbidden too as implying plainly an exercise of authority in some over others in the Church And therefore Musculus thus explains the place Non exigit hoc Christus ut omnes in regno suo sint aequales sed nè quispiam cupiat magnus primus haberi videri It is not an inequality of Order but ambition which Christ forbids and therefore he observes that Christ saith not Let none be great among you and none first which should have been if all Primacy and Superiority had been forbidden and a necessity of an equality among Church-Officers but he that will be great among you let him be your Minister Let those that are above others look upon themselves as the servants of others and not as their masters For God never bestows any power on any for the sake of those that have it but for the sake of those for whom they are employed When men seek then their own greatnesse and not the service of the Church they flatly contradict this
Precept of Christ But with you it shall not be so But however an inequality of Power and Order for the Churches good is not thereby prohibited Which is sufficient for my purpose The next place to be considered is that in Matthew 18. 15 16 17. If thy brother shall trespass against thee go and tell him his fault between thee and him alone if he shall hear thee thou hast gained 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 And if he shall neglect to hear them tell it to the Church but if he neglect to hear the Church let him be unto thee as an heathen man and a Publican It seems a very strange thing to consider that this one place hath been pressed by all parties to serve under them for the maintenance of their own particular form of Government so that as the Iews fable of the Manna it hath had a different taste according to the diversity of the palats of men Those that are for a Congregational Church being the first receptacle of Church power set this place in the front of their arguments Those who plead for Standing Presbyteries Lay-Elders subordination of Courts fetch all these out of this place Those that are for a Power of Church Discipline to be only lodged in a higher Order of Chur 〈…〉 Officers succeeding the Apostles derive the succession of that power from this place nay lest quidlibet should not be proved èquolibet the Papists despair not of proving the constant visibility of the Church the subordination of all to the Pope the infallibility of general Councils all out of this place Methinks then it might be argument enough of the incompetency of this place to determine any one particular form when it is with equal confidence on all sides brought to prove so many especially if it be made appear that the general Rule laid down in these words may be observed under a diversity of forms of Government For whether by the Church we mean the community of the faithful in a particular Congregation or the standing Officers of such a Church or a Consistorial Court or Synodical Assembly or higher Church-Officers it is still the duty of men in case of offences to tell the Church for redresse of grievances or vindication of the person himself that he hath discharged his duty This place then determines not what this Church is nor what the form of it◠Government should be when the sense of it holds good and true under such diversity of forms But we shall further enquire what influence this place can have upon the modelling the Government in the Church of God Fo◠Chamier tells us the prima Politia Ecclesiasticae origo is to be found in these words it will be then worth our enquiry to see what foundation for Church government can be drawn out of these words In which the variety of Expositions like a multitude of Physitians to a distempered Patient have left it worse then they found it I mean more difficult and obscure We shall therefore endeavour to lay aside all pre-conceptions by other mens judgements and opinions and see what innate Light there is in the Text it self to direct us to the full sense and meaning of it Two things the great difficulty of the place lyes in What the offences are here spoken of What the Church is which must b◠spoken to For the First I conceive it evident to any unprejudicated mind that the matter our Saviour speaks of is a matter of private offence and injury and not a matter of scandal as such considered in a Church-Society which I make appear thus First From the parallel place to this Luke 17. 3. 〈…〉 y Brother trespasse against thee rebuke him and if he repent forgive him This can be nothing else but a matter of private injury because it is in the power of every private person to forgive it which it was not in his power to do were it a matter of scandal to the whole Church unlesse we make it among Christians as it was among the Jews that every private person might excommunicate another and to release him afterward Secondly It manifestly appears from St. Peters words next after this Paragraph Matth. 18. 20. Lord how often shall my brother sin against me and I forgive him till seven times c. Christ answers him till seventy times seven that is as often as he doth it And thence Christ brings the parable of the King forgiving his Servants v. 23. Thirdly Were it meant of any scandalous sin committed with the privacy of any particular person as many understand trespassing against thee that is te conscio then this inconvenience must necessarily follow that matters of scandal must be brought to the Churches cognizance when there can be no way to decide them that is when one offends and only one person knows it here will be a single affirmation on one side and denyal on the other side and so there can be no way to decide it the matter here spoken of then is somewhat only relating to the offence or injury of some particular person and not a matter of scandal to the whole Church The Question then as propounded to be spoken to by our Saviour is What is to be done in case of private offences between man and man and not in case of secret sins against God and scandalous to the Church Now to this our Saviour layes down his answer gradually first there must be private admonition if that succeed not admonition before witnesses if not that telling the Church if not that neither reputing him as a Heathen and Publican Now in this answer we must conceive our Saviour speaks as to an ordinary case so in a way easie to be understood by all that heard him and therefore he must speak in allusion to what was at that time among the Jews in such cases which is freely acknowledged both by Calvin and Beza upon the place Nam certè tanquam de Iudais haec dici apparet saltem ex eo quod addit Sit tibi sicut Ethnicus Publicanus We must then see what the custom was among the Jews in such cases and how far our Saviour doth either approve the custome received or appoint new The Law was very strict in case of offences for every man in any wise to rebuke his Neighbour and not to suffer sin upon him Arguendo argues our old Translation renders it Thou shalt plainly rebuke thy Neighbour Now this piece of necessary Discipline our Saviour endeavours to recover among them which it seems was grown much out of use with them For Rabbi Chanina as Mr. Selden observes gave this as one reason of the destruction of Ierusalem because they left off reproving one another Non excisa fuissent Hierosolyma nisi quoniam alter alterum non coarguebat Our Saviour
mean such Differences as respect persons and not things which our Saviour layes down these Rules for the ending of And therefore I cannot but wonder to see some men insist so much on that place against such an Exposition of this Luke 12. 14. where Christ saith Who made me a Iudge and a Divider among you For doth it any wayes follow Because Christ would not take upon him to be a temporal Judge among the Jewes therefore he should take no course for the ending differences among his Disciples and the taking away all animosities from among them Nay on the contrary doth not our Saviour very often designedly speak to this very purpose to root out all bitterness malice envy and rancour from mens spirits and to perswade them to forgive injuries even to pray for persecutours and by any means to be reconciled to their Brethren Which he makes to be a Duty of so great necessity that if a man had brought his gift to the Altar and remembred his brother had ought against him he bids him leave his gift there and go be reconciled to his Brother and then offer up the Gift We see hereby how suitable it was to our Saviours Doctrine and Design to lay down Rules for the ending of any differences arising among his Disciples and this being now cleared to be the state of the Case it will not be difficult to resolve what is meant by telling the Church Which I make not to be any appeal to a juridical court acting authoritatively over the persons brought before it but the third and highest step of Charity in a man towards a person that hath offended him viz. That when neither private admonition nor before two or three witnesses would serve to reclaim the offendor then to call a select company together which is the Natural importance of the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and before them all to lay open the cause of the breach and difference between them and to refer it to their Arbitration to compose and end it Which Sense of the place I humbly conceive to have the least force in it and in every part of it to be most genuine and natural and fully agreeable to the received practice among the Jewes which the Author of the Book Musar cited by Drusius fully acquaints us with whose words I shall Transcribe as being a plain Paraphrase on these of our Saviour Qui arguit socium suum debet primum hoc facere placide inter se ipsum solum verbis mollibus ita ut non pudefaciat eum Si resipiscit bene est sin debet eum acritèr arguere pudefacere inter se ipsum Si non resipiscit debet adhibere socios ipsumque coram illis pudore afficere si nec modo quicquam proficit debet eum pudefacere coram multis ejusque delictum publicare Nam certe detegendi sunt hypocritae That which this Authour calls pudefacere eum coram multis is that which our Saviour means when he bids him tell the Church or the Congregation as our Old Translation renders it This the Jews called reproving of men 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 before a multitude as the Vulg. Latin though falsly renders that place Lâ—viticus 19. 17. publicè argue eum and to this the Apostle may allude when he speaks of the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 2 Corinth 2. 6. censure of many and the reproof 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 before all 1 Tim. 5. 20. which was to be in matters of publike scandal upon Religion 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as the Jewes call them but in case the offendor should still 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 slight this overture of Reconciliation before the company selected for hearing the Case then saith our Saviour look upon him as an obstinate refractory creature and have no more to do with him then with a Heathen and a Publican by which terms the most wilful obstinate sinners were set out among the Jewes and by which our Saviour means a mans withdrawing himself as much as in him lies from all familiar society with such a person And thus saith Christ Whatsoever you bind in Earth shall be bound in Heaven and whatsoever you loose on Earth shall be loosed in Heaven v. 18. that is If after all your endeavours of Reconciliation the offender will hearken to no agreement it is an evidence and token that mars sin is bound upon him that is shall not be pardoned so long as he continues impenitent but if he repent of his offence and you be reconciled as the offence is removed on Earth thereby so the sin is loosed in Heaven that is forgiven The guilt of sin that binds it being an Obligation to punishment and so the pardon of sin that looseth as it cancels that Obligation And so Grotius observes that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is the same with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 what is called retaining in one place is binding in another and what is loosing in one place is remitting in the other But now although I assert this to be the true proper genuine meaning of this difficult place yet I deny not but that this place hath influence upon Church-Government but I say the influence it hath is onely by way of Accommodation and by Analogy deduced from it According to which these things I conceive have Foundation in these words First gradual appeals from the Method here laid down by our Saviour Secondly Church censures and the Duty of submitting to Church-authority For although before any Church Power was actually set up as when our Saviour spake these words then there was none yet after that Church-Government was fixed and set up it must in Reason be supposed that all matters of the Nature of scandals to the Church must be decided there Thirdly The lawfulness of the Use of excommunication in Christian Churches for if every particular person might withdraw from the Society of such a one as continues refractory in his Offences then much more may a whole Society and the Officers of it declare such a one to be avoided both in religious and familiar civil Society which is the formal Nature of Excommunication Herein we see the wisdom of our Saviour who in speaking to a particular case hath laid down such general Rules as are of perpetual use in the Church of God for accommodating differences arising therein Thus have we hitherto cleared that our Saviour hath determined no more of Church-Govern-ment then what is appliable to a diversity of particular Forms and so hath not by any Law or practice of his own determined the necessity of any one form CHAP. VI. The next thing pleaded for determining the Form of Government is Apostolical practice two things inquired into concerning that What it was How far it binds The Apostles invested with the power and authority of Governing the whole Church of Christ by their Commission Io. 20. 21. Matth.
so at first for as to this division of the Jews and Gentiles between Paul and Peter it cannot be understood exclusively of others for what work then had the rest of the Apostles to do neither taking them distributively was Paul excluded from preaching to â—he Iews or Peter to the Gentiles We see Paul was at first chosen to be a Vessel to bear Christs name before the Gentiles and Kings and the children of Israel We see hereby he was appointed an Apostle as well to Jews as Gentiles and accordingly we find him presently preaching Christ in the Synagogues and confounding the Iews So in all places where Paul came he first preached to the Jewâ— in the Synayogues and when they would not hearken to him then he turned to the Gentiles Neither was this done only before the Apostles meeting at Ierusalem supposed to be that spoken of Acts 15 but after at Ephesus we find him entring into the Synagogues there and preaching to the Jews So likewise he did at Corinth Acts 18. 4. And he reasoned in the Synagogue every Sabbath and perswaded the Iews and the Greeks Paul then we see thought not himself excluded from preaching to the Jews because they were St. Peters Province Neither did Peter think himself excluded from the Gentiles he was the first that opened the door of Faith to them by preaching to them in which respect it is not altogether improbably conceived by some that the power of the Keys was peculiarly given to him And afterwards in the open Council at Ierusalem he owns himself as the Apostle to the Gentiles God made choyce among us that the Gentiles by my mouth should hear the word of the Gospel and believe This then evidently destroys any such early distinction of Provinces when Peter whose Province seems most expresse in Scripture viz. the Circumcision yet we find him acting as an Apostle to the Gentiles too I deny not but at the meeting of Paul and Peter at Ierusalem when they observed how God did blesse the one most in the circumcision the other in the uncircumcision there was an agreement between them for the one to lay out his pains chiefly upon the Iews and the other upon the Gentiles and in probability where they met in any City the one gathered a Church of the Iews and the other of the Gentiles but this makes no such distinction of Provinces as to exclude the one from the others charge and further this agreement between Paul and Peter then after both had preached so many years makes it fully clear that the pretended division of Provinces so early among the Apostles is only the wind-egge of a working Fancy that wants a shell of Reason to cover it As for the division of Provinces mentioned in Ecclesiastical Writers though as to some few they generally agree as that Thomas went to Parthia Andrew to Scythia Iohn to the lesser Asia c. yet as to the most they are at a losse where to find their Provinceâ— and contradict one another in reference to them and many of them seem to have their first original from the Fable of Dorotheus Nicephorus and such Writers Having shewed that the Apostles observed no set-order for distributing Provinces we come to shew what course they took for the setling of Churches in the places they went to In the clearing of which nothing is more necessary then to free our judgements of those prejudices and prepossessions which the practice either of the former ages of the Church or our own have caused within us For it is easie to observe that nothing hath been a more fruitful mother of mistakes and errours then the looking-upon the practice of the primitive Church through the glass of our own customs Especially when under the same name as it is very often seen something far different from what was primarily intended by the use of the word is set forth to us It were no difficult task to multiply examples in this kind wherein men meeting with the same names do apprehend the same things by them which they now through custome signifie without taking notice of any alteration in the things themselves signified by those names Thus since the name Missa was appropriated by the Papists to that which they call the Sacrifice of the Altar wherever they meet among ancient Writers with that Name they presently conceive the same thing was understood by it then Whereas it was then only taken for the publike Service of the Church so called from the dismission of the people after it with an Ite Missa est and from the different forms of Christians they had two several Services the one called Missa Catechumenorum because at the end of that the Catechumeni were dismissed out of the Assembly the other Missa fidelium at which they received the Lords Supper which afterwards the former discipline of the Church decaying ingrossed the name Missa to its self and when the Sacrifice of the Altar came up among the Papists it was appropriated to that For though they innovated things never so much yet it hath been alwayes the Policy of that Church not to innovate names that so the incautelous might be better deceived with a pretence of antiquity and thus under the anciently simple name of Missa lyes at this day couched a Masse of errours So after the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 was applyed by them to that Sacrifice wherever they meet that word in Scripture they interpret it in that sense and hence when we only read of the Teachers at Antioch 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 no other rendring of the words will be taken but Sacrificantibus illis although it be not only contrary to the sense of the word in the New Testament but to the Exposition of Chrysostome Theophylact and Oecumenius who expound it by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Thus when publike Liturgies were grown into use in the Church after the decay of the gifts of the first primitive Church Eusebius his bare calling S. Iames 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 though he relates only to his Ministry in the Church of Jerusalem is enough to entitle him Father to a Liturgy which soon crept forth under his name by an argument much of the same strength with that which some have brought for reading Homilies because it is said of St. Paul Acts 20. 11. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Of the same stamp is Bellarminâ—s argument for Invocation of Saints because of Iacobs saying Invocetur super eos nomen meum But we need not go far for examples of this kind The businesse we are upon will acquaint â—s with some of them As the argument for popular Election of Pastors from the Grammatical sense of the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for Lâ—y-Elders from the name 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and modern Episcopacy from the use of the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in Scriptures Names and Things must then be accurately distinguished
and the sense of the names must neither be fetched from the custome now used nor from the Etymologie of the word but from the undoubted practice of Apostolical times if that can be made appear what it was Which will be best done if we can once find out what course and order the Apostles took in the forming and modelling the Churches by them planted That which we lay then as a foundation whereby to clear what Apostolical practice was is that the Apostles in the forming Churches did observe the customes of the Jewish Synagogues Totum regimen Ecclesiarum Christi conformatum fuit ad Synagogarum exemplar saith Grotius truly Praesides curatores Ecclesiarum ad instar Presbyterorum Synagogae Iudaicae constitutos fuisse constat as Salmasius often affirms In which sense we understand that famous speech of the Author of the Commentary on St. Pauls Epistles which goes under the name of Ambrose but now judged by most to be done by Hilary a Deacon of the Church of Rome under which name St. Augustine quotes some words on the fifth to the Romanes which are found still in those Commentaries Nam apud omnes utique gentes honorabilis est senectus unde Synagoga postea Ecclesia Seniores habuit sine quorum consilio nihil agebatur in Ecclesiâ which words are not to be understood of a distinct sort of Presbyters from such as were employed in preaching the Word but of such Presbyters as were the common Council of the Church for the moderating and ruling the affairs of it which the Church of Christ had constituted among them as the Jewish Synagogue had before And from hence we observe that the Ebionites who blended Judaism and Christianity together whence Ierome saith of them Dum volent Iudai esse Christiani nec Iudaei sunt nec Christiani they made a Linsey-woolsey Religion which was neither Iudaism nor Christianity These as Epiphanius tells us called their publike Meeting-place 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and the Pastors of their Churches 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Thereby implying the resemblance and Analogy between the form of Government in both of them But this will best be made appear by comparing them both together For which we are to take notice how much our Saviour in the New Testament did delight to take up the received practices among the Jews only with such alterations of them as were suitable to the Nature and Doctrine of Christianity as hath been abundantly manifested by many learned men about the Rites of the Lords Supper taken from the post-coenium among the Jews the use of Baptism from the Baptism used in initiating Proselytes Excommunication from their putting out of the Synagogue As to which things it may be observed that those Rites which our Saviour transplanted into the Gospel-soyl were not such as were originally founded on Moses his Law but were introduced by a confederate Discipline among themselves And thus it was in reference to the government of the Synagogues among them for although the reason of erecting them was grounded on a command in the Levitical Law Levit. 23. 3. where holy Convocations are required upon the Sabbath-dayes yet the building of Synagogues in the Land was not as far as we can find till a great while after For although Moses require the duty of assembling yet he prescribes no orders for the place of meeting nor for the manner of spending those dayes in Gods service nor for the persons who were to super-intend the publike worship performed at that time These being duties of a moral nature are left more undetermined by Moses his Law which is most punctual in the Ceremonial part of Divine Service And therefore even then when God did determine the positives of Worship we see how much he left the performance of morals to the wisdom and discretion of Gods people to order them in a way agreeable to the mind and will of God We shall not here discourse of the more elder Customs and observations of the Synagogues but take the draught of them by the best light we can about our Saviours time when the Apostles copyed out the Government of Christian-Churches by them About the time of Christ we find Synagogues in very great request among the Jews God so disposing it that the moral part of his service should be more frequented now the Ceremonial was expiring and by those places so erected it might be more facile and easie for the Apostles to disperse the Gospel by preaching it in those places to which it was the custome for the people to resort And as Paul at Athens observing the Altar inscribed 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 To the unknown God takes his Text from thence and begins to preach God and Christ to them so the Apostles in every Synagogue meet with a Copy of the Law from whence they might better take their rise to discover him who was the end of the Law for Righteousness to all that believe For Moses of old time hath in every City them that Preach him being read in the Synagogues every Sabbath day It was their constant custome then every Sabbath day to have the Law publickly read for which every Synagogue was furnished with a most exact Copy which was looked upon as the great Treasure and Glory of their Synagogue in the Copying out of which the greatest care and diligence was used In their Synagogues they read onely the Law and the Prophets the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Hagiographa were not ordinarily read in publick the Law for the more convenient reading it was distributed into fifty four Sections which they called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 every week one Section being read joyning twice two lesser Sections together the whole Law was read through once every year But here I cannot say that the Jews were absolutely bound up to read the several Sections appointed for the dayes as it is commonly thought from which Paraschae and the times prefixed of reading them Cloppenburgh fetched a new Interpretation of the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which is that the first Sabbath was that of the civil year which began with the Section 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 upon the twenty fourth of the month Tisri but the second Sabbath after the first was the first Sabbath of the sacred Year which began with the Section 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 upon the Calends of Nisan but I doe not see any such Evidence of so exact and curious a Division of the several Sections so long since as the time of our Saviour is which appears by our Saviours reading in the Synagogue at Nazareth where it seems he read after the Synagogue custome as one of the seven called out by the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to read before the people but we find no Section assigned him by him that delivered the book to him the Office of the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but it is said of him 〈◊〉 〈◊〉
call'd the Ruler of the Synagogue 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the Scriptures 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which in the importance of the New Testament Greek following that of the Alexandrian Iews in the version of the Old Testament implyes no more then a primacy of order in him above the rest he was joyned with And thence sometimes we read of them in the Plural number 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Acts 13. 15. implying thereby an equality of power in many but by reason of the necessary primacy of one in order above the rest the name may be appropriated to the President of the Colledge Acts 18. 8 17. we read of two viz. Crispus and Sosthenes and either of them is call'd 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which could not be did the name import any peculiar power of Jurisdiction lodged in one exclusive of the rest unlesse we make them to be of two Synagogues which we have no evidence at all for I confesse Beza his argument from 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Mark 5. 22. for a multitude of those so call'd in the same Synagogue is of no great force where we may probably suppose there were many Synagogues But where there is no evidence of more then one in a place and we find the name attributed to more then one we have ground to think that there is nothing of power or Jurisdiction in that one which is not common to more besides himself But granting some peculiarity of honour belonging to one above the rest in a Synagogue which in some places I see no great reason to to deny yet that implyes not any power over and above the Bench of which he was a Member though the first in order Much as the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Prince of the Sanhedrin whose place imported no power peculiar to himself but only a Priority of dignity in himself above his fellow Senators as the Princeps Senatûs in the Roman Republick answering to the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the great Sanhedrin who was next to the Nasi as the Princeps Senatûs to the Consuls which was only a Honorary Dignity and nothing else Under which disguise that Politick Prince Augustus ravished the Roman Commonwealth of its former liberty The name 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 may I suppose in propriety of speech be rendred in Latin Magister ordinis he being by his Office Praesul a name not originally importing any power but only dignity Those whom the Greeks call 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Latins render Magistros sui ordinis and so Suetonius interprets 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by Magisterium sacerdotii They who meet then with the name Archisynagogues either in Lampridius Vopiscus Codex Theodosii Iustinians Novels in all whom it occurs and in some places as distinct from Presbyters will learn to understand thereby only the highest honour in the Synagogue considering how little yea nothing of power the Jews enjoyed under either the Heathen or Christian Emperours One thing more we add touching this honour of the Rulers of the Synagogue among the Jews that whatever honour title power or dignity is imported by that name it came not from any Law enforcing or commanding it but from mutual conâ—oederation and agreement among the persons imployed in the Synagogue whose natural reason did dictate that where many have an equality of power it is most convenient by way of accumulation upon that person of a power more then he had but not by deprivation of themselves of that inherent power which they enjoyed to entrust the management of the executive part of affairs of common concernment to one person specially chosen and deputed thereunto So it was in all the Sanhedrins among the Jews and in all well-ordered Senates and Councils in the World And it would be very strange that any Officers of a religious Society should upon that account be out-Lawed of those natural Liberties which are the results and products of the free actings of Reason Which things as I have already observed God hath looked on to be so natural to man as when he was most strict and punctual in ceremonial Commands he yet left these things wholly at liberty For we read not of any command that in the Sanhedrin one should have some peculiarity of honour above the rest this mens natural reason would prompt them to by reason of a necessary priority of Order in some above others which the very instinct of Nature hath taught irrational creatures much more should the Light of Reason direct men to But yet all order is not power nor all power juridical nor all juridical power a sole power therefore it is a meer Paralogism in any from Order to inferr power or from a delegated power by consent to inferr a juridical power by Divine Right or lastly from a power in common with others to deduce a power excluding others All which they are guilty of who meerly from the name of an Archisynagogue would fetch a perpetual necessity of jurisdiction in one above the Elders joyned with him or from the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the Sanhedrin a power of a sole Ordination in one without the consent of his fellow Senators But of these afterwards Thus much may suffice for a draught in little of the Government of the Jewish Synagogue Having thus far represented the Jewish Synagogue that the Idea of its government may be formed in our understandings we now come to consider how far and in what the Apostles in forming Christian Churches did follow the pattern of the Jewish Synagogue Which is a notion not yet so far improved as I conceive it may be and I know no one more conducible to the happy end of composing our differences touching the government of the Church then this is I shall therefore for the full clearing of it premise some general considerations to make way for the entertainment of this hypothesis in mens minds at least as probable and then endeavour particularly to shew how the Apostles did observe the model of the Synagogue in its publike service in ordination of Church Officers in forming Presbyteries in the several Churches in ruling and governing those Presbyteries The general consideration I premise to shew the probability of what I am asserting shall be from these things from the community of name and customs between the believing Iews and others at the first forming of Churches from the Apostles forming Churches out of Synagogues in their travelling abroad from the agreeablenesse of that model of Government to the State of the Christian Churches at that time I begin with the first From the community of names and customs between the believing and unbelieving Iews at the first forming Churches All the while our blessed Saviour was living in the World Christ and his Disciples went still under the name of Jews they neither renounced the name nor the customs in use among them Our Saviour goes up to the
they were thought by those who were equally enemies to both to be of the same body and community Which consideration will make the thing I aim at seem more probable when withall we observe that the Jewish customs in their Synagogues were those whereby they were most known among the Romans and therefore when they looked on the Christians as of the same Religion with the Jews it is evident they observed no difference as to their publick practises in their religious Societies Which is the first consideration to shew how probable it is that Christians observed the same form in Government with what they found in the Synagogues To which I add a second Consideration which is the Apostles forming Christian Churches out of Jewish Synagogues We have already shewed how much their resort was to them in their preaching from the constant practice of Paul although he was in a more peculiar manner the Apostle of the uncircumcision much more then is it probable that the others especially Peter Iames and Iohn did resort to the Circumcision And in the setling things at first we see how fearful the Apostles were of giving offence to the Jews how ready to condescend to them in any thing they lawfully might And can we think that Paul would yield so far to the Jews as to circumcise Timothy rather then give offence to the Jews in those parts where he was and that in a thing which seemed most immediately to thwart the design of the Gospel as circumcision did witness the Apostle himself that yet he would scruple the retaining the old model of the Synagogue when there was nothing in it at all repugnant to the Doctrine of the Gospel or the nature and constitution of Christian Churches When the Apostles then did not only gather Churches out of Synagogues but at some places in probability whole Synagogues were converted as well as whole Churches formed What shew of reason can be given why the Apostles should flight the constitution of the Jewish Synagogues which had no dependance on the Jewish Hierarchy and subsisted not by any command of the ceremonial Law The work of the Synagogue not belonging to the Priest as such but as persons qualified for instructing others and the first model of the Synagogue government is with a great deal of probability derived from the Schools of the Prophets and the Government thereof This consideration would be further improved if the notion of distinct coetus of the Jewish and Gentile Christians in the same places could be made out by any irrefragable Testimony of Antiquity or clear evidence of reason drawn from Scripture Because the same reason which would ground the distinction of the Jewish Church from the Gentile would likewise hold for the Jewish Church to retain her old form of Government in the Synagogue way For it must be some kind of peculiarity supposed by the Jews in themselves as distinct from the Gentiles which did make them form a distinct Congregation from them which peculiarity did imply the observing those customes among them still by which that peculiarity was known to others among which those of the Synagogue were not the least known or taken notice of But I must freely confesse I find not any thing brought by that learned Person who hath managed this Hypothesis with the greatest dexterity to have that evidence in it which will command assent from an unprejudicated mind And it is pitty that such infirm Hypotheses should be made use of for the justifying our separation from Rome which was built upon reasons of greater strength and evidence then those which have been of late pleaded by some assertors of the Protestant Cause though men of excellent abilities and learning For there are many reasons convictive enough that Peter had no universal power over the Church supposing that there was no such thing as a distinction between the Jewish and Gentile Coetus I deny not but at first before the Jews were fully satisfied of the Gentiles right to Gospel priviledges they were very shy of communicating with them especially the believing Jews of the Church of Ierusalem Upon the occasion of some of whom coming down to Antioch from Iames it was that Peter withdrew and separated himself from the Gentiles with whom before he familiarly conversed Which action of his is so far from being an argument of the setling any distinct Church of the Jews from the Gentiles there that it yields many reasons against it For first Peters withdrawing was only occasional and not out of design whereas had it been part of his commission to do it we cannot conceive Peter so mindlesse of his Office as to let it alone till some Jews came down from Ierusalem to tell him of it Secondly It was not for the sake of the Jews at Antioch that he withdrew but for the Jews which came down from Ierusalem whereas had he intended a distinct Church of the Jews he would before have setled and fixed them as members of another body but now it evidently appears that not only Peter himself but the Jews with him did before those Jews coming to Antioch associate with the Gentiles which is evident by v. 13. And other Iews dissembled likewise with him in so much that Barnabas also was carryed away with their dissimulation Whereby it is clear that these Jews did before joyn with the Gentile-Christians or else they could not be said to be led away with the dissimulation of Peter Thirdly St. Paul is so far from looking upon this withdrawing of Peter and the Iews from the Gentiles society to be a part of St. Peters Office that he openly and sharply reproves him for it What then was Paul so ignorant that there must be two distinct Churches of Iews and Gentiles there that he calls this action of his dissimulation In all reason then supposing this Notion to be true the blame lights on Paul and not on Peter as not understanding that the Jews were to be formed into distinct bodies from the Gentile-Christians And therefore it is observable that the same Author who is produced as asserting that seorsim quae ex Iudais erant Ecclesiae habebantur nec his quae â—rant ex Gentibus miscebantur is he who makes this reprooâ— of Peter by Paul to be a meer matter of dissimulation between them both which sense of that action whoever will be so favourable to it as to embrace it as some seem inclinable to do it will never be able to answer the arguments brought by St. Augustine against it This place then was unhappily light upon to ground a distinction of the several Coeius or distinct Churches of Jews and Christians at Antioch But it may be more evidence for it may be seen in the Rescript of the Council of Ierusalem which is directed 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 To the Brethren of Antioch those of the Gentiles But. lest some hidden mysteries should lye in this curtailing the words
let us see them at large Unto the Brethren which are of the Gentiles in Antioch and Syria and Cilicia There was nothing then peculiar to those of the Gentiles at Antioch more then in Syria and Cilicia and if those words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 imply a Coetus distinct of Gentile-Christians from the Jews at Antioch it must do so through all Syria and Cilicia which was Pauls Province and not Peters as appears by his travels in the Acts. Eâ—theâ— then the Apostle of the uncircumcision must form distinct Churches of Iews and Gentiles in his preaching through Syria and Silicia which is irreconcilable with the former pretence of distinct Provinces asserted by the same Author who pleads for distinct Coetus or the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 can imply no such thing as a distinct Church of Gentiles to whomsover it is spoken and so not at Antioch more then through all Syria and Silicia The plain ground then of the Apostles inscribing the order of the Council to the Brethren of the Gentiles was because the matter of that Order did particularly concern them and not the Jews as is obvious to any that will but cast an eye upon the 23 24 29. verses of the 15. of the Acts. As well might then an order supposed from the Apostles to the several Pastors of the Churches in things concerning them as such imply that they make distinct Churches from their people as this order concerning the Gentile Brethren being therefore directed to them doth imply their making distinct Churches from the Jewish Brethren in the Cities where they lived together What is further produced out of Antiquity to this purpose hath neither evidence nor pertinency enough to stop the passage of one who is returning from this digression to his former matter Although then we grant not any such distinct Coetus of the Jews from the Christians yet that hinders not but that both Jews and Christians joyning together in one Church might retain still the Synagogue form of Government among them which there was no reason at all why the Christians should scruple the using of either as Jews or Gentiles because it imported nothing either Typical and Ceremonial or heavy and burdensome which were the grounds why former customs in use among the Jews were laid aside by the Christians But instead of that it was most suitable and agreeable to the state of the Churches in Apostolical times which was the third consideration to make it probable that the Synagogue form of Government was used by the Christians And the suitablenesse of this Government to the Churches lay in the conveniency of it for the attaining all ends of Government in that condition wherein the Churches were at that time For Church Officers acting then either in gathering or governing Churches without any authority from Magistrates such a way of Government was most suitable to their several Churches as whereby the Churches might be governed and yet have no dependancy upon the secular power which the way of Government in the Synagogues was most convenient for for the Jews though they enjoyed a bare permission from the civil state where they lived yet by the exercise of their Synagogue Government they were able to order all affairs belonging to the service of God and to keep all members belonging to their several Synagogues in unity and peace among themselves The case was the same as to Synagogues and Churches these subsisted by the same permission which the others enjoyed the end of these was the service of God and preserving that order among them which might best become societies so constituted there can be no reason then assigned why the Apostles in setling particular Churches should not follow the Synagogue in its model of Government These things may suffice to make it appear probable that they did so which is all these considerations tend to Having thus prepared the way by making it probable I now further enquire into the particular part of Government and what orders in the Synagogue were which there is any evidence for that the Apostles did take up and follow Here I begin with the thing first propounded The orders of publick Worship which did much resemble those of the Synagogue Only with those alterations which did arise from the advancing of Christianity That the Christians had their publick and set meetings for the service of God is evident from the first rising of a society constituted upon the account of Christianity We read of the three thousand converted by Peters Sermon That they continued in the Apostles doctrine and fellowship and breaking of bread and prayers Where we have all that was observed in the Synagogue and somewhat more here there is publick joyning together implyed in the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 their solemn prayers expressed which were constantly observed in the Synagogue instead of reading the Sections of the Law and Prophets we have the Apostles teaching by immediate inspiration and to all these as the proper service of Christianity is set down the celebration of the Lords-supper which we shall seldome or ever in the Primitive Church read the publick service on Lords Dayes performed without During the Apostolical times in which there was such a Land-flood of extraordinary gifts overflowing the Church in the publick meeting we find those persons who were indued with those gifts to be much in exercising them as to the custom agreeing with the Synagogue but as to the gifts exceeding it concerning the ordering of which for the publick edification of the Church the Apostle Paul layes down so many Rules in the fourteenth Chapter to the Corinthians but assoon as this flood began to abate which was then necessary for the quicker softening the World for receiving Christianity the publick service began to run in its former channel as is apparent from the unquestionable testimonies of Iustin Martyr and Tertullian who most fully relate to us the order of publick Worship used among the Christians at that time Iustin Martyr the most ancient next to Clemens whose Epistle is lately recovered to the Christian World of the unquestionable Writers of the Primitive Church gives us a clear Narration of the publick Orders observed by the Church in his time 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Upon the Day call'd Sunday all the Christians whether in Town or Country assemble in the same place wherein the Memoires or Commentaries of the Apostles and the writings of the Prophets are read as long as the time will permit Then the Reader sitting down the President of the Assembly stands up and makes a Sermon of Instruction and Exhortation to the following so good Examples After this is ended we all stand up to prayers prayers ended the Bread Wine and Water are all brought forth then the President again praying and praising to his utmost ability the people testifie their consent by saying Amen What could have been spoken with greater congruity or correspondency to the Synagogue abating the
as poor Ierome lies in by a wound he is supposed to have given himself when the priest and the Levite hath passed him by it will be a piece of Charity in our passing by the way a little to consider his Case to see whether there be any hopes of recovery We take it then for granted that Ierome hath already said that Apostolus perspiâ—uè docet eosdem esse Presbytsros quos Episcopos in the same Epistle which he proves there at large and in another place Siâ—â—t ergo Presbyteri sciunt se ex Ecclesiae consuetudine ei qui sibi praeposiâ—us fuerit esse subjectos it a Episcopi noverint se magis consuetudine quam disposition is Dominicae veritate Presbyteris esse majores in commune debere Ecclesiam regere The difficulty now lyes in the reconciling this with what is before câ—ted out of the same Author Some solve it by saying that in Ieroms sense Apostolical Tradition and Ecclesiaestical Custome are the same as ad Marcellum he saith the observation of Lent is Apostolica traditio and advers Luciferian shith it is Ecclesiae consuâ—tudo so that by Apostolical Tradition he meant not an Apostolical Institution but an Ecclesiastical Custome And if Ierome speak according to the general Vogue this Solution may be sufficient notwithstanding what is said against it for according to that common rule of Austin Things that were generally in use and no certain Author assigned of them were attributed to the Apostles Two things therefore I shall lay down for reconciling Ierome to himself The first is the difference between Traditio Apostolica and Traditio Apostolorum this latter doth indeed imply the thing spoken of to have proceeded from the Apostles themselves but the former may be applyed to what was in practice after the Apostles times and the reason of it is that what ever was done in the Primitive Church supposed to be agreeable to Apostolical practice was called Apostolical Thence the Bishops See was called Sedes Apostolicâ— as Tertullian tells us ob consangâ—iâ—itatem doctrinae So Sidonius Apollinaris calls the See of Lâ—pâ—s the Bishop of Tricassium in France Sedem Apostolicam And the Bishops of the Church were called Viri Apostolici and thence the Constitutions which goe under the Apostles names were so called saith Albaspinaeus ab antiquitate â—nam cum corum aliquot ab Apostolorum successoribus qui teste Tertullianâ— Apostolici viri â—omiâ—ahantur facti essent Apostolicorum primùâ—â— Canones deinde nonnullorum Latinorum ignorantia aliquot literarum detractione Apostolorum dicti sunt By which we see what ever was conceived to be of any great antiquity in the Church though it was not thought to have come from the Apostles themselves yet it was called Apostolioal so that in this sense Traditio Apostolica is no more then Traditio autiqua or ab Apostolicis viris profecta which was meant rather of those that were conceived to succeed the Apostles then of the Apostles themselves But I answer Secondly that granting Traditio Apostolica to mean Traditio Apostolorum yet Ierome is far from contradicting himself which is obvious to any that will read the words before and consider their coherence The scope and drift of his Epistle is to chastise the arrogance of one who made Deacons superiour to Presbyters Audio quendam in tantam erupisse vecordiam ut Diaconos Presbyteris id est Episcopis anteferret and so spends a great part of the Epistle to prove that a Bishop and Presbyter are the same and at last brings in these words giving the account Why Paul to Timothy and Titus mentions no Presbyters Quia in Episcopo Presbyter continetur Aut igitur ex Presbytero ordinetur Diaconus ut Presbyter minor Diacono comprobetur in quem crescat ex parvâ— aut si ex Diacono ordinatur Presbyter noverit se lucris minorem Sacerdoâ—iâ— esse majorem And then presently adds Et ut sciamus traditiones Apostolicas sumptas de veteri Testamento Quod Aaron Filii ejus atq Levitae in Templo fuerunt hoc sibi Episcopi Presbyteri atque Diaconi vendicent in Ecclesiâ It it imaginable that a man who had been proving all along the superiority of a Presbyter above a Deacon because of his Identity with a Bishop in the Aposties times should at the same time say that a Bishop was above a Presbyter by the Apostles institution and so directly overthrow all he had been saying before Much as if one should go about to prove that the Prâ—fectus urbis and the Curatores urbis in Alexander Severus his timeâ— were the same Office and to that end should make use of the Constitution of that Emperour whereby he appointed 14. Curatores urbis and set the Praefectus in an Office above them Such an incongruity is scarce incident to a man of very ordinary esteem for intellectuals much less to such a one as Ierome is reputed to be The plain meaning then of Ierome is no more but this that as Aaron and his sons in the order of Priesthood were above the Levites under the Law So the Bishops and Presbyters in the order of the Evangelical Priesthood are above the Deacons under the Gospel For the comparison runs not between Aaron and his sons under the Law and Bishops and Presbyters under the Gospel but between Aaron and his sonnes as one part of the comparison under the Law and the Levites under them as the other so under the Gospel Bishops and Presbyters make one part of the comparison answering to Aaron and his Sonnes in that wherein they all agree viz. The Order of Priest hood and the other part under the Gospel is that of Deacons answering to the Levites under the Law The Opposition is not then in the power of jurisdiction between Bishops and Priests but between the same power of Order which is alike both in Bishops and Presbyters according to the acknowledgement of all to the Office of Deacons which stood in Competition with them Thus I hope we have left Ierome at perfect Harmony with himself notwithstanding the attempt made to make him so palpably contradict himself which having thus done we are at liberty to proceed in our former course onely hereby we see how unhappily those arguments succeed which are brought from the Analogy between the Aaronical Priest hood to endeavour the setting up of a Ius Divinum of a parallel superiority under the Gospel All which arguments are taken off by this one thing we are now upon viz. that the orders and degrees under the Gospel were not taken up from Analogy to the Temple but to the Synagogue Which we now make out as to Ordination in three things the manner of conferring it the persons authorized to do it the remaining effect of it upon the person receiving it First For the manner of conferring it that under the Synagogue was done by laying on of hands Which was taken up among
the Jewes as a significative rite in the ordaining the Elders among them and thereby qualifying them either to be members of their Sanhedrins or Teachers of the Law Aâ— twofold use I find of this Symbolical Rite beside the solemn designation of the person on whom the hands are laid The first is to denote the delivery of the person or thing thus laid hands upon for the right use and peculiar service of God And that I suppose was the reason of laying hands upon the Beast under the Law which was to be sacrificed thereby noting their own parting with any right in it and giving it up to be the Lords for a sacrifice to him Thus in the Civill Law this delivery is requisite in the transferring Dominion which they call translatio de manu in manum The second end of laying on of hands was the solemn Iuvocation of the Divine presence and assistance to be upon and with the person upon whom the hands are thus laid For the hands with us being the instruments of action they did by stretching out their hands upon the person represent the efficacy of Divine Power which they implored in behalf of the perâ—on thus designed Tunc enim â—rabant ut sic Dei efficacia esset super illum sicut manus efficaciae symbolum ei imponebatur as Grotius observes Thence in all solemn Prayers wherein any person was particularly designed they made use of this Custome of imposition of Hands from which Custome Augustine speaks Quid aliud est manuum impositio nisi oratio super hominem Thence when Iacob prayed over Iosephs Children he laid his hands upon them so when Moses prayed over Ioshua The practice likewise our Saviour used in blessing Children healing the Sick and the Apostles in conferring the Gifts of the Holy-Ghost and from thence it was conveyed into the practice of the Primitive Church who used it in any more solemn invocation of the name of God in behalf of any particular persons As over the sick upon Repentance and Reconciliation to the Church in Confirmation and in Matrimony which as Grotius observes is to this day used in the Abissine Churches But the most solemn and peculiar use of this Imposition of hands among the Jews was in the designing of any Persons for any publike imployment among them Not as though the bare Imposition of hands did conferre any power upon the Person no more then the bare delivery of a thing in Law gives a legall Title to it without express transferring Dominion with it but with that Ceremony they joyned those words whereby they did confer that Authority upon them Which were to this purpose 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Ecce sis tu Ordinatus or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ego ordino te or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 sis ordinatus to which they added according to the authority they ordained them to some thing peculiarly expressing it whether it was for causes finable or pecuniary or binding and loosing or ruling in the Synagogue Which is a thing deserving consideration by those who use the rite of imposing hands in Ordination without any thing expressing that authority they convey by that Ordination This custome being so generally in use among the Jews in the time when the Apostles were sent forth with Authority for gathering and setling Churches we find them accordingly making use of this according to the former practice either in any more solemn invocation of the presence of God upon any persons or designation and appointing them for any peculiar service or function For we have no ground to think that the Apostles had any peculiar command for laying on their hands upon persons in Prayer over them or Ordination of them But the thing its self being enjoyned them viz. the setting apart some persons for the peculiar work of attendance upon the necessities of the Churches by them planted they took up and made use of a laudable Rite and Custome then in use upon such occasions And so we find the Apostles using it in the solemn designation of some persons to the Office of Deacons answering to the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the Synagogue whose Office was to collect the moneys for the poor and to distribute it among them Afterwards we read it used upon an occasion not heard of in the Synagogue which was for the conferring the gifts of the Holy-Ghost but although the occasion was extraordinary yet supposing the occasion the use of that rite in it was very suitable in as much as those gifts did so much answer to the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which the Jewes conceived did rest upon those who were so ordained by imposition of hands The next time we meet with this rite was upon a peculiar Designation to a particular service of persons already appointed by God for the work of the Ministry which is of Paul and Barnabas by the Prophets and Teachers at Antioch whereby God doth set forth the use of that Rite of Ordination to the Christian Churches Accordingly we find it after practised in the Church Timothy being ordained by the laying on of the hands of the Presbytery And Timothy hath direction given him for the right management of it afterwards Lay hands suddenly on no man For they that would interpret that of reconciling men to the Church by that Rite must first give us Evidence of so early an use of that Custome which doth not yet appear But there is one place commonly brought to prove that the Apostles in Ordaining Elders in the Christian Churches did not observe the Jewish Form of laying on of hands but observed a way quite different from the Jewish practice viz. appointing them by the choice consent and suffrages of the people Which place is Acts 14 23. where it is said of Paul and Barnabas 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 We render it Ordaining them Elders in every Church But others from the signification of the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 would have it rendered When they had appointed Elders by the suffrages of the people But how little the peoples power of Ordination can be inferred from these words will be evident to any one that shall but consider these things First that though 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 did originally signifie the choosing by way of suffrage among the Greeks yet before the time of Lukes writing this the word was used for simple designation without that Ceremony So Hesychius interprets it by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the word used of Titus for ordaining Elders in every City and in Demosthenes and others it occurs for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to decree and appoint and that sense of the word appears in Saint Luke himself Acts 10. 41. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Witnesses foreappointed of God Many examples of this signification are brought by Learned men of Writers before and about the time when Luke Writ
from Philo Iudaeus Iosephus Appian Lucian and others But Secondly granting it used in the primary signification of the word yet it cannot be applied to the people but to Paul and Barnabas for it is not said that the people did 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but that Paul and Barnabas did 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 now where ever that word is used in its first signification it is implyed to be the action of the persons themselves giving suffrages and not for other persons appointing by the suffrages of others Thirdly 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 may import no more then 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in that laying on of the hands must suppose the stretching them out Which is onely a common figure in Scripture for the Antecedent to be put for the Consequent or one part for the whole action and concerning this sense of the word in Ecclesiastical Writers see the large quotations in Bishop Bilson to this purpose Fourthly It seems strangely improbable that the Apostles should put the choice at that time into the hands of the people when there were none fitted for the work the Apostles designed them for but whom the Apostles did lay their hands on by which the Holy Ghost sell upon them whereby they were fitted and qualified for that work The people then could no wayes choose men for their abilities when their abilities were consequenâ— to their ordination So much to clear the manner of Ordination to have been from the Synagogue The second thing we consider is The persons authorized to do it whom we consider under a double respect before their liberties were bound up by compact among themselves and after First Before they had restrained themselves of their own liberty then the general rule for Ordinations among them was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 every one regularly ordained himself had the power of Ordaining his Disciples as Maimonides affirms To the same purpose is that Testimony of the Gemara Babylonia in Master Selden 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Rabbi Abba Bar Ionah said that in times of old every one was wont to ordain his own Disciples to which purpose many instances are there brought But it is generally agreed among them that in the time of Hillel this course was altered and they were restrained from their former liberty in probability finding the many inconveniences of so common Ordinations or as they say out of their great reverence to the house of Hillel they then agreed that none should ordain others without the presence of the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Prince of the Sanhedrin or a license obtained from him for that end and it was determined that all Ordinations without the consent of the Prince of the Sanhedrin should be looked upon as null and void which is attested by the former Authors The same distinct on may be observed under the Gospel in reference to the fixed Officers of the Church for we may consider them in their first state and period as the Presbyters did rule the Churches in common as Hierom tells us communi Presbyterorum conciâ—io Ecclesiâ— gubernabantur before the jurisdiction of Presbyters was restrained by mutual consent in this instant doubtlesse the Presbyters enjoyed the same liberty that the Presbyters among the Jews did of ordaining other Presbyters by that power they were invested in at their own ordination To which purpose we shall only at present take notice of the Confession of two Canonists who are the hâ—ghest among the Papists for defence of a distinct order of Episcopacy Yet Gratian himself confesseth Sacros ordines dicimus Diaconatum Presbyteratum hos quidem solos Ecclesia primitiva habuisse dicitur And Iohannes Semeca in his Gloss upon the Canon Law Dicunt quidem quod in Ecclesia prima-primitiva commune erat officium Episcoporum Sacerdotum nomina erant communia Sed in secundâ primitivâ coeperunt distingui nomina officia Here we have a distinction of the Primitive Church very agreeable both to the opinion of Hierom and the matter we are now upon in the first Primitive Church the Presbyters all acted in common for the welfare of the Church and either did or might ordain others to the same authority with themselves because the intrinsecal power of order is equally in them and in those who were after appointed Governours over Presbyteries And the collation of orders doth come from the power of order and not meeâ—ly from the power of jurisdiction It being likewise fully acknowledged by the Schoolmen that Bishops are not superiour above Presbyters as to the power of order But the clearest evidence of this is in the Church of Alexandria of which Hierom speaks Nam Alexandria à Marco Evangelistâ usque ad Heraclam Dionysium Episcopos Presbyteri semper unum ex se electum in excelsiori gradu collâ—catum Episcopum nominabant quomodo si exercitus Imperatorem faciat aut Diaconi eligant de se quem industrium noverint Archidiaconum vocent That learned Doctor who would perswade us that the Presbyters did only make choice of the person but the ordination was performed by other Bishops would do well first to tell us who and where those Bishops in Aegypt were who did consecrate or ordain the Bishop of Alexandria after his election by the Presbyters especially while Aegypt remained but one Province under the Government of the Praefectus Augustalis Secondly how had this been in the least pertinent to Hieroms purpose to have made a particular instance in the Church of Alexandria for that which was common to all other Churches besides For the old Rule of the Canon-Law for Bishops was Electio clericorum est consensus principis petitio plebis Thirdly this election in Hierom must imply the conferring the power and authority whereby the Bishop acted For first the first setting up of his power is by Hierom attributed to this choice as appears by his words Quod autem postea unus electus est qui caeteris praeponeretur in schismatis remedium factum est ne unusquisque ad se trahens Christi Ecclesiam rumperet Whereby it is evident Hierom attributes the first original of that Exsors potestas as he calls it elsewhere in the Bishop above Presbyters not to any Apostolical institution but to the free choice of the Presbyters themselves which doth fully explain what he means by consuetudo Ecclesiae before spoken of viz. that which came up by a voluntary act of the Governours of Churches themselves Secondly it appears that by election he means conferring authority by the instances he brings to that purpose As the Roman Armies choosing their Emperours who had then no other power but what they received by the length of the sword and the Deacons choosing their Archdeacon who had no other power but what was meerly conâ—erred by the choice of the Coâ—ledge of Deacons To which we may add what Eutychius the Patriarch of Alexandria saith in
in summi sacerdotis dignitate pendet cui si non exsors quaedam ab omnibus eminens detur potestas tot in Ecclesiis efficientur schismata quot sacerdotes Where nothing can be more evident than that he would have some supereminent power attributed to the Bishop for preventing schisms in the Church But granting some passages may have a more favourable aspect towards the superiority of Bishops over Presbyters in his other writings I would fain know whether a mans judgment must be taken from occasional and incidental passages or from designed and set discourses which is as much as to ask whether the lively representation of a man by picture may be best taken when in haste of other business he passeth by us giving only a glance of his Countenance or when he purposely and designedly sits in order to that end that his countenance may be truly represented Besides it is well known that Hierom in his Commentaries on Scripture where he doth not expresly declare his own opinion doth often transcribe what he finds in others without setting down the name of any Authour he had it from For which we have his ingenuous confession in his Epistle to Augustine Itaque ut simpliciter fatear legi haec omnia speaking of former Commentaries in mente mea plurima conservans accito notario vel mea vel aliena dictavi nec ordinis nec verborum interdum nec sensuum memor A strange way of writing Commentaries on Scripture wherein a man having jumbled other mens notions together in his brain by a kind of lottery draws out what next comes to hand without any choice yet this we see was his practice and therefore he puts Austin to this hard task of examining what all other men had writ before him and whether he had not transcribed out of them before he would have him charge him with any thing which he finds in his Commentaries How angry then would that hasty Adversary have been if men had told him he had contradicted himself in what he writes on the forty fifth Psalm about Bishops if it be compared with his Commentaries on Titus where he professeth to declare his opinion or his Epistles to Evagrius and Oceanus But yet some thing is pleaded even from those places in Hierom wherein he declares his opinion more fully as though his opinion was only that Christ himself did not appoint Episcopacy which they say he means by Dominica dispositio but that the Apostles did it which in opposition to the former he calls Ecclesiae consuetudo but elsewhere explains it by traditio Apostolica and this they prove by two things First The occasion of the institution of Episcopacy which is thus set down by him antequam Diaboli instinctu studia in religione fierent diceretur in populis Ego sum Pauli ego Apollo ego autem Cephae communi Presbyterorum consilio Ecclesiae guber nabantur Thence it is argued that the time of this Institution of Bishops was when it was said at Corinth I am of Paul I of Apollos and I of Cephas which was certainly in Apostol cal times But to this it is answered First That it is impossible Hieroms meaning should be restrained to that individual time because the arguments which Hierom brings that the name and office of Bishops and Presbyters were the same were from things done after this time Pauls first Epistle to the Corinthians wherein he reproves their schisms was written according to Ludovicus Cappellus in the tweâ—fth year of Claudius of Christ fifty one after which Paul writ his Epistle to Titus from whose words Hierom grounds his discourse but most certainly Pauls Epistle to the Philippians was not written till Paul was prisoner at Rome the time of the writing of it is placed by Cappellus in the third of Nero of Christ 56. by Blondell 57. by our Lightfoot 59. by all long after the former to the Corinthians yet from the first verse of this Epistle Hierom fetcheth one of his arguments So Pauls charge to the Elders at Miletus Peters Epistle to the dispersed Jews were after that time too yet from these are fetched two more of Hieroms arguments Had he then so little common sense as to say that Episcopacy was instituted upon the schism at Corinth and yet bring all his arguments for parity after the time that he sâ—â—s for the Institution of Episcopacy But secondly Hierom doth not say cum diceretur apud Corinthios Ego sum Pauli c. but cum diceretur in populis Ego sum Pauli c so that he speaks not of that particular schism but of a general and universal schism abroad among most people which was the occasion of appointing Bishops and so speaks of others imitating the schism and language of the Corinthians Thirdly had Episcopacy been instituted on the occasion of the schism at Corinth certainly of all places we should the soonest have heard of a Bishop at Corinth for the remedying of it and yet almost of all places those Heralds that derive the succession of Bishops from the Apostles times are the most plunged whom to fix on at Corinth And they that can find any one single Bishop at Corinth at the time when Clemens writ his Epistle to them about another schism as great as the former which certainly had not been according to their opinion if a Bishop had been there before must have better eyes and judgement than the deservedly admired Grotius who brings this in his Epistle to Bignonius as one argument of the undoubted antiquity of that Epistle Quod nusquam meminit exsortis illius Episcoporum auctoritatis quae Ecclesiae consuetudine post Marci mortem Alexandriae atque eo exemplo alibi introduci coepit sed planè ut Paulus Apostolus ostendit Ecclesias communi Presbyterorum qui iidem omnes Episcopi ipsi Pauloque dicuntur consilio fuisse gubernatas What could be said with greater freedom that there was no such Episcopacy then at Corinth Fourthly They who use this argument are greater strangers to St. Ierom's language than they would seem to be whose custome it is upon incidental occasions to accommodate the phrase and language of Scripture to them as when he speaks of Chrysostom's fall Cecidit Babylon cecidit of the Bishops of Palestine Multi utroque claudicant pede of the Roman Clergy Pharisaeorum conclamavit Senatus but which is most clear to our purpose he applyes this very speech to the men of his own time Quando non id ipsum omnes loquimur alius dicit Ego sum Pauli ego Apollo ego Cephae dividimus spiritûs unitatem eam in partes membra discerpimus All which instances are produced by Blondell but have the good fortune to be past over without being taken notice of But supposing say they that it was not till after the schism at Corinth yet it must needs be done by the Apostles else how could it be said to be
purpose likewise Hierome understands it On the contrary those that say that these Elders were those of the several Churches of Asia are favoured by v. 18. that from the first day he came into Asia he had been with them at all seasons Now Paul did not remain all the time at Ephesus as appears by Acts 19 10 22 26. where he is said to preach the Word abroad in Asia and so in probability Churches were planted and Rulers setled in them and that these were at this time called to Miletus by Paul is the expresse affirmation of Irenaeus In Mileto enim convocatis Episcopis Presbyteris qui eraâ—t ab Epheso à reliquis proximis civitatibus quoniam ipse festinavit Hierosolymis Pentecostem agere Here is nothing then either in the Text or Antiquity that doth absolutely determine whence these Elders came but there may be a probability on either side and so no certainty or necessity of understanding it either way And so for the other places in Timothy and Titus it is certain the care of those persons did extend to many places and therefore the Elders or Bishops made by them are not necessarily to be understood of a Plurality of Elders in one place Thus we see that there is no incongruity in applying either of these two forms to the sense of the places in Question I dispute not which is the true or at least more probable sense but that we can find nothing in the several places which doth necessarily determine how they are to be understood as to one particular form of Government which is the thing I now ayme at the proving of And if neither form be repugnant to the sense of these places how can any one be necessarily inferred from them As if the several motions and phaenomena of the Heavens may be with equal probability explained according to the Ptolemaick or Copernican Hypothesis viz. about the rest or motion of the earth then it necessarily follows that from those Phaenomena no argument can be drawn evincing the necessity of the one Hypothesis and overturning the probability of the other If that great wonder of Nature the flux and reflux of the Sea might with equal congruity be solved according to the different opinions of its being caused by Subterraneous fires or from the motion of the Moon or the depression of the Lunar vortex or which to me is far the most probable by a motion of consent of the Sea with all the other great bodies of the World we should find no necessity at all of entertaining one opinion above another but to look upon all as probable and none as certain So likewise for the composition and motion of all Natural Bodyes the several Hypotheses of the old and new Philosophy implying no apparent incongruity to Nature do make it appear that all or any of them may be embraced as Ingenious Romances in Philosophy as they are no more but that none of them are the certain truth or can be made appear so to be to the minds of men So it is in Controversies in Theology If the matter propounded to be believed may as to the truth and substance of it be equally believed under different wayes of explication then there is no necessity as to the believing the truth of the thing to believe it under such an explication of it more then under another As for instance in the case of Christs Descent 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 if I may truly believe that Christ did Descend 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 whether by that we understand the state of the Dead or a local Descent to Hell then there is no necessity in order to the belief of the substance of that article of the ancient Creed called The Apostles under that restriction of a local Descent By this time I suppose it is clear that if these places of Scripture may be understood in these two different senses of the word Elders viz. either taken collectively in one City or distributively in many then there is no certainty which of these two senses must be embraced and so the form of Church-government which must be thence derived is left still at as great uncertainty as ever notwithstanding these places of Scripture brought to demonstrate it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Thirdly The uncertainty of the Primitive Form of Government will be made appear from the Defectivenesse Ambiguity Partiality and Repugnancy of the Records of the succeeding Ages which should inform us what Apostolical practice was When men are by the force of the former arguments driven off from Scripture then they presently run to take Sanctuary in the Records of succeeding ages to the Apostles Thus Estius no mean School-man handling this very Question of the difference of Bishops and Presbyters very fairly quits the Scriptures and betakes himself to other Weapons Quod autem jure divino sint Episcopi Presbyteris superiores et si non ita clarum est è sacris Literis aliunde tamen satis efficaciter probari potest Ingenuously said however but all the difficulty is how a Ius divinum should be proved when men leave the Scriptures which makes others so loth to leave this hold although they do it in effect when they call in the help of succeeding Ages to make the Scripture speak plain for them We follow therefore the scent of the Game into this wood of Antiquity wherein it will be easier to lose our selves then to find that which we are upon the pursuit of a Ius Divinum of any one particular form of Government I handle now only the Testimony of Antiquity for the practice of it will call for a particular Discourse afterwards and herein I shall endeavour to shew the incompetency of this Testimony as to the shewing what certain form of Church-government was practised by the Apostles for that I shall make use of this four fold Argument From the defectivenesse of this Testimony from the Ambiguity of it from the Partiality of it and from the Repugnancy of it to its self First then for the defectivenesse of the Testimony of antiquity in reference to the shewing what certain form the Apostles observed in setling the Government of Churches A threefold defectivenesse I observe in it as to places as to times as to persons First defectivenesse as to places for him that would be satisfied what course the Apostles took for governing Churches it would be very requisite to observe the uniformity of the Apostles practice in all Churches of their plantation And if but one place varied it were enough to overthrow the necessity of any one form of Government because thereby it would be evident that they observed no certain or constant course nor did they look upon themselves as obliged so to do Now the ground of the necessity of such an universal Testimony as to places is this We have already made it appear that there is no Law of Christ absolutely
commanding one form and forbidding all other We have no way then left to know whether the Apostles did look upon themselves as bound to settle one form but by their practice this practice must be certain and uniform in them this uniformity must be made known to us by some unquestionable way the Scriptures they are very silent in it mentioning very little more then Pauls practice nor that fully and clearly therefore we must gather it from Antiquity and the Records of following ages if these now fall short of our expectation and cannot give us an account of what was done by the Apostles in their several Churches planted by them how is it possible we should attain any certainty of what the Apostles practice was Now that antiquity is so defective as to Places will appear from the general silence as to the Churches planted by many of the Apostles Granting the truth of what Eusebius tells us That Thomas went into Parthia Andrew into Scythia Iohn into the lesser Asia Peter to the Jews in Pontus Galatia Bithynia Cappadocia Asia besides what we read in Scripture of Paul what a pittiful short account have we here given in of all the Apostles Travels and their several fellow-labourers And for all these little or nothing spoke of the way they took in setling the Churches by them planted Who is it will undertake to tell us what course Andrew took in Scythiae in governing Churches If we believe the Records of after-ages there was but one Bishop viz. of Tomis for the whole Countrey how different is this from the pretended course of Paul setting up a single Bishop in every City Where do we read of the Presbyteries setled by Thomas in Parthia or the Indies what course Philip Bartholomew Matthew Simon Zelotes Matthias took Might not they for any thing we know settle another kind of Government from what we read Paul Peter or Iohn did unlesse we had some evidence that they were all bound to observe the same Nay what evidence have we what course Peter took in the Churches of the Circumcision Whether he left them to their Synagogue way or altered it and how or wherein These things should be made appear to give men a certainty of the way and course the Apostles did observe in the setling Churches by them planted But instead of this we have a general silence in antiquity and nothing but the forgeries of latter ages to supply the vacuity whereby they filled up empty places as Plutarch expresseth it as Geographers do Maps with some fabulous creatures of their own invention Here is work now for a Nicephorus Callisthus a Simeon Metaphrastes the very Iacobus de Voragine of the Greek Church as one well calls him those Historical Tinkers that think to mend a hole where they find it and make three instead of it This is the first defect in Antiquity as to places The second is as observable as to times and what is most considerable Antiquity is most defective where it is most useful viz. in the time immediately after the Apostles which must have been most helpfull to us in this inquiry For who dare with confidence believe the conjectures of Eusebius at three hundred years distance from Apostolical times when he hath no other Testimony to vouch but the Hypotyposes of an uncertain Clement certainly not he of Alexandria if Ios. Scaliger may be credited and the Commentaries of Hegesippus whose Relations and Authority are as questionable as many of the reports of Eusebius himself are in reference to those elder times For which I need no other Testimony but Eusebius in a place enough of its self to blast the whole credit of antiquity as to the matter now in debate For speaking of Paul and Peter and the Churches by them planted and coming to enquire after their Successours he makes this very ingenuous Confession 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Say you so Is it so hard a matter to find out who succeeded the Apostles in the Churches planted by them unless it be those mentioned in the writings of Paul What becomes then of our unquestionable Line of Succession of the Bishops of several Churches and the large Diagramms made of the Apostolical Churches with every ones name set down in his Order as if the Writer had been Clarenceaulx to the Apostles themselves Is it come to this at last that we have nothing certain but what we have in Scriptures And must then the Tradition of the Church be our rule to interpret Scriptures by An excellent way to find out the Truth doubtless to bend the Rule to the crooked Stick to make the Judge stand to the Opinion of his Lacquey what sentence he shall pass upon the Cause in question to make Scripture stand cap in hand to Tradition to know whether it may have leave to speak or no! Are all the great outcries of Apostolical Tradition of personal Succession of unquestionable Records resolved at last into the Scripture its self by him from whom all these long pedegrees are fetched then let Succession know its place and learn to vaile Bonnet to the Scriptures And withall let men take heed of over-â—eaching themselves when they would bring down so large a Catalogue of single Bishops from the first and purest times of the Church for it will be hard for others to believe them when Eusebius professeth it is so hard to find them Well might Scaliger then complain that the Intervall from the last Chapter of the Acts to the middle of Trajan in which time Quadratus and Ignatius began to flourish was tempus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as Varro speaks a meer Chaos of time filled up with the rude concept ons of Papias Hermes and others who like Hann ibal when they could not find a way through would make one either by force or fraud But yet Thirdly here is another defect consequent to that of Time which is that of Persons arising not onely from a defect of Records the Diptychs of the Church being lost which would have acquainted us with the times of suffering of the severall Martyrs by them called their Natalitia at which times their several names were inrolled in these Martyrologies which some as Iunius observes have ignorantly mistaken for the time of their being made Bishops of the places wherein their names were entered as Anacletus Clytus and Clemens at Rome I say the defect as to Persons not only ariseth hence but because the Christians were so much harassed with persecutions that they could not have that leisure then to write those things which the leisure and peace of our ages have made us so eagerly inquisitive after Hence even the Martyrologies are so full stuffed with Fables witness one for all the famous Legend of Catharina who suffered say they in Diocletian's time And truly the story of Ignatius as much as it is defended with his Epistles doth not seem to be any of the most probable For wherefore should
intended It is not enough to shew a List of some persons in the great Churches of Ierusalem Antioch Rome and Alexandria although none of these be unquestionable but it should be produced at Philippi Corinth Caesarea and in all the seven Churches of Asia and not onely at Ephesus and so likewise in Creet some succeeding Titus and not think Men will be satisfied with the naming a Bishop of Gortyna so long after him But as I said before in none of the Churches most spoken of is the Succession so clear as is necessary For at Ierusalem it seems somewhat strange how fifteen Bishops of the Circumcision should be crouded into so narrow a room as they are so that many of them could not have above two years time to rule in the Church And it would bear an inquiry where the Seat of the Bishops of Ierusalem was from the time of the Destruction of the City by Titus when the Walls were laid even wih the Ground by Musonius till the time of Adrian for till that time the succession of the Bishops of the Circumcision continued For Antioch it is far from being agreed whether Evodius or Ignatius succeeded Peter or Paul or the one Peter and the other Paul much less at Rome whether Cletus Anacletus or Clemens are to be reckoned first but of these afterwards At Alexandria where the succession runs clearest the Originall of the power is imputedito the choice of Presbyters and to no Divine Institution But at Ephesus the succession of Bishops from Timothy is pleaded with the greatest Confidence and the Testimony brought for it is from Leontius Bishop of Magnesia in the Council of Chalcedon whose words are these 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 From Timothy to this day there hath been a succession of seven and twenty Bishops all of them ordained in Ephesus I shall not insist so much on the incompetency of this single witness to pass a judgement upon a thing of that Nature at the distance of four hundred Years in which time Records being lost and Bishops being after settled there no doubt they would begin their account from Timothy because of his imployment there once for setling the Churches thereabout And to that end we may observe that in the after-times of the Church they never met with any of the Apostles or Evangelists in any place but they presently made them Bishops of that place So Philip is made Bishop of Trallis Ananias Bishop of Damascus Nicolaus Bishop of Samaria Barnabas Bishop of Milan Silas Bishop of Corinth Sylvanus of Thessalonica Crescens of Chalcedon Andreas of Byzantium and upon the same grounds Peter Bishop of Rome No wonder then if Leontius make Timothy Bishop of Ephesus and derive the succession down from him But again this was not an act of the Council its self but onely of one single person delivering his private opinion in it and that which is most observable is that in the thing mainly insisted on by Leontius he was contradicted in the face of the whole Council by Philip a Presbyter of Constantinople For the case of Bâ—ssianus and Stephen about their violent intrusion into the Bishoprick of Ephesus being discussed before the Council A question was propounded by the Council where the Bishop of Ephesus was to be regularly ordained according to the Canons Leontius Bishop of Magnesia saith that there had been twenty seven Bishops of Ephesus from Timothy and all of them ordained in the place His business was not to derive exactly the succession of Bishops but speaking according to vulgar tradition he insists that all had been ordained there Now if he be convicted of the crimen falsi in his 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 no wonder if we meet with a mistake in his 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. e. if he were out in his allegation no wonder if he were deceived in his tradition Now as to the Ordination of the Bishops in Ephesus Philip a Presbyter of Constantinople convicts him of falsehood in that for saith he Iohn Bishop of Constantinople going into Asia deposed fifteen Bishops there and ordained others in their room And Aetius Archdeacon of Constantinople instanceth in Castinus Heraclides Basilius Bishop of Ephesus all ordained by the Bishop of Constantinople If then the certainty of succession relyes upon the credit of this Leontius let them thank the Council of Chalcedon who have sufficiently blasted it by determining the cause against him in the main evidence produced by him So much to shew how far the clearest evidence for succession of Bishops from Apostolical times is from being convincing to any rationall Man Thirdly the succession so much pleaded by the Writers of the Primitive Church was not a succession of Persons in Apostolicall Power but a succession in Apostolical Doctrine Which will be seen by a view of the places produced to that purpose The first is that of Irenaeus Quoniam valdè longum est in hoc tali volumine omnium Ecclesiarum enumerare successiones maximae antiquissimae omnibus cognitae à gloriossimis duobus Apostolis Petro Paulo Romae fundatae constitutae Ecclesiae eam quam habet ab Apostolis traditionem annunciatam hominibus fidem per successiones Episcoporum perveniâ—nâ—es usque ad nos indicantes confundimus omnes eos c. Where we see Irenaeus doth the least of all aim at the making out of a Succession of Apostolical power in the Bishops he speaks of but a conveying of the Doctrine of the Apostles down to them by their hands which Doctrine is here called Tradition not as that word is abused by the Papists to signifie something distinct from the Scriptures but as it signifies the conveyance of the Doctrine of the Scripture it self Which is cleared by the beginning of that Chapter Traditionem itaque Apostolorum in toto mundo manifestatam in Ecclesia adest perspic â—re omnibus qui vera vâ—lint audire habemus annumerare eos qui ab Apostolis instituti sunt Episcopi in Ecclesiis successores eorum usque ad nos qui nihil tale docuerunt nâ—que cognoverunt quale ab his deliratur His plain meaning is that those persons who were appointed by the Apostles to oversee and govern Churches being sufficient witnesses themselves of the Apostles Doctrine have conveyed it down to us by their successours and we cannot learn any such thing of them as Valentinus and his followers broached We see it is the Doctrine still he speaks of and not a word what power and superiority these Bishops had over Presbyters in their several Churches To the same purpose Tertullian in that known speech of his Edant Origines Ecclesiarum suarum evolvant ordinem Episcoporum suorum ita per successiones ab initio decurrentem ut primuâ— ille Episcopus aliquem ex Apostolis aut Apostolicis viris habuerit authorem antecessorem Hoc modo Ecclesiae Apostolicae census suos deferunt sicut Smyrnaeorum Ecclesia habens Polycarpum
380. Isidore succeeded Leander in Sevill 600. The Council sat 619. The Council of Aquen which tanscribes Isidore and owns his Doctrine 816. So that certainly supposing the words of all to be the same yet the Testimony is of greater force as it was owned in several Ages of the Church by whole Councils without any the least controul that we read of And if this then must not be looked on as the Sense of the Church at that time I know not how we can come to understand it if what is positively maintained by different persons in different ages of the Church and in different places without any opposing it by Writers of those ages or condemning it by Councils may not be conceived to be the Sense of the Church at that time So that laying all these things together we may have enough to conclude the Ambiguity at least and thereby incompetency of the Testimony of Antiquity for finding out the certain form which the Apostles observed in planting Churches We proceed to the third thing to shew the incompetency of Antiquity for deciding this Controversie which will be from the Partiality of the Testimony brought from thence Two things will sufficiently manifest the Partiality of the judgment of Antiquity in this Case First their apparent judging of the practice of the first Primitive Church according to the Customes of their own Secondly their stiffe and pertinacious adhering to private traditions contrary to one another and both sides maintaining theirs as Apostolical First judging the practice of the Apostles by that of their own times as is evident by Theodoret and the rest of the Greek Commentators assigning that as the Reason why the Presbyters spoken of in the Epistles to Timothy and Titus were not Bishops in the Sense of their age because there could be but one Bishop in a City whereas there are more expressed in those places as being in the several Cities whereas this is denyed of Apostolical times by the late pleaders for Episcopacy and it is said of them that they spoke according to the custome of their own time And it is now thought there were two Bishops in Apostolical times in several Cities the one the head of the Jewish Coetus and the other of the Gentile I enter not the Dispute again here whether it were so or no onely I hence manifest how farr those persons themselves who plead for the judgement of the Fathers as deciding this Controversie are from thinking them impartial Judges when as to the grounds of their Sentence they are confessed to speak onely of the practice of their own time Who can imagine any force in Chrysostomes argument That the Presbyters who laid hands on Timothy must needs be Bishops because none do Ordain in the Church but Bishops unless he makes this the medium of his argument That whatever was the practice of the Church in his dayes was so in Apostolical times There is I know not what strange influence in a received custome if generally embraced that doth possess men with a â—ancy it was never otherwise then it is with them nay when they imagine the necessity of such a custome at present in the Church they presently think it could never be otherwise then it is But of this I have spoken somewhat already Secondly that which makes it appear how partial the judgement of Antiquity is in adhering to their particular Traditions and calling them Apostolical though contrary to one another How can we then fix upon the Testimony of Antiquity as any thing certain or impartial in this Case when it hath been found so evidently partial in a Case of less concernment then this is A witness that hath once betrayed his faithfulness in the open Court will hardly have his Evidence taken in a Case of moment especially when the Cause must stand or fall according to his single Testimony For my part I see not how any man that would see Reason for what he doth can adhere to the Church for an unquestionable Tradition received from the Apostles when in the case of keeping Easter whether with the Jewes on the fourteenth Moon or only on the Lords day there was so much unreasonable heat shewed on both sides and such confidence that on either side their Tradition was Apostolical The Story of which is related by Eusebius and Socrates and many others They had herein all the advantages imaginable in order to the knowing the certainty of the thing then in question among them As their nearness to Apostolical times being but one remove from them yea the persons contending pleaded personal acquaintance with some of the Apostles themselves as Polycarp with Iohn and Anicetus of Rome that he had his Tradition from Saint Peter and yet so great were the heats so irreconcilable the Controversie that they proceeded to dart the Thunderbolt of excommunication in one anothers faces as Victor with more zeal then piery threw presently the Asiatick Churches all out of Communion onely for differing as to this Tradition The small coals of this fire kindled a whole Aetna of contention in the Christian world the smoak and ashes nay the flames of which by the help of the Prince of the Aire were blown over into the bosome of the then almost Infant Northern Churches of Brittain where a solemn dispute was caused upon this quarrel between Colmannus on one side and Wilfride on the other The like contest was upon this Occasion between Augustine the Monk and the Brittish Bishops The Observation of this strange combustion in the Primitive Church upon the account of so vain frivolous unnecessary a thing as this was drew this note from a Learned and Judicious Man formerly quoted in his Tract of Schism By this we may plainly see the danger of our appeal to Antiquity for resolution in controverted points of Faith O how small relief are we to expect from thence For if the discretion of the chiefest Guides and Directors of the Church did in a point so trivial so inconsiderable so mainly fail them as not to see the Truth in a Subject wherein it is the greater marvel how they could avoid the fight of it Can we without the imputation of great grossness and folly think so poor-spirited persons competent Iudges of the questions now on foot betwixt the Churches Thus that person as able to make the best improvement of the Fathers as any of those who profess themselves the most superstitious admirers of Antiquity But if we must stand to the judgement of the Fathers let us stand to it in this that no Tradition is any further to be imbraced then as it is founded on the Word of GOD. For which purpose those words of Cyprian are very observable In compendio est autem apud religios as simplices mentes errorem deponere invenire atque eruere veritatem Nam si ad Divinae Traditionis caput Originem revertamur cessat error humanus He asserts it an easie
matter for truly religious and plain-hearted men to lay aside their Errour and to find out the Truth which is by returning to the head and spring of Divine Tradition viz. the Scriptures Which he expresseth further with an elegant similitude Si Canalis aquam ducens qui copiose prius largiter profluebat subito deficiat nonne ad fontem pergitur ut illic defectionis ratio noscatur utrumne arescentibus venis in capite unda siccaverit an verò integra deinde plena procurrens in medio itinere destiterit ut si vitio interrupti aut bibuli canalis effectum est quò minus aqua continua perseveranter jugiter flueret refecto confirmato canali ad usum atque ad potum civitatis aqua collecta eadem ubertate atque integritate repraesentaretur qua de fonte proficiscitur Quod nunc facere oportet Dei sacerdotes praecepta divina servantes ut si in aliquo mutaverit l. nutaverit vacillaverit veritas ad originem Dominicam Evangelicam Apostolicam Traditionem revertamur inde surgat actus nostri ratio unde ordo origo surrexit His meaning is That as when a channel suddenly fails we presently inquire where and how the breach was made and look to the Spring and Fountain to see the waters be fully conveyed from thence as formerly so upon any failure in the Tradition of the Church our onely recourse must be to the true Fountain of Tradition the Word of God and ground the Reason of our Actions upon that which was the Foundation of our profession And when Stephen the Bishop of Rome would tedder him to tradition Cyprian keeps his liberty by this close question Unde illa Traditio â— utrumne de Dominica Evangelica auctoritate descendens an de Apostolorum mandatis atque Epistolis veniens Si ergo aut Evangelio praecipitur aut in Apostolorum Epistolis aut Actibus continetur observetur Divina haec Sancta traditio We see this good man would not baulk his way on foot for the great bugbear of Tradition unless it did bear the Character of a Divine Truth in it and could produce the credentials of Scripture to testifie its authority to him To the same purpose that stout Bishop of Cappadocia Firmilian whose unhappiness with Cyprians was onely that of Iobs Friends that they excellently managed a bad Cause and with far more of the Spirit of Christianity then Stephen did who was to be justified in nothing but the Truth he defended Eos autem saith Firmilian qui Roma sunt non ea in omnibus observare quae sint ab origine tradita frustra Apostolorum auctoritatem prâ—tendere which he there makes out at large viz. That the Church of Rome had gathered corruption betimes which after broke out into an Impostume in the head of it Where then must we find the certain way of resolving the Controversie we are upon The Scriptures determine it not the Fathers tell us there is no believing tradition any further then it is founded in Scripture thus are we sent back from one to the other till at last we conclude there is no certain way at all left to find out a decision of it Not that we are left at such uncertainties as to matters of Faith I would not be so mistaken We have Archimedes his Postulatum granted us for that a place to fix our Faith on though the World be moved out of its place I mean the undoubted Word of God but as to matters of Fact not clearly revealed in Scripture no certainty can be had of them from the hovering light of unconstant Tradition Neither is it onely unconstant but in many things Repugnant to its self which was the last Consideration to be spoke to in reference to the shewing the incompetency of Antiquity for deciding our Controversie Well then suppose we our selves now waiting for the final Verdict of Church-Tradition to determine our present cause If the Iury cannot agree we are as far from satisfaction as ever and this is certainly the Case we are now in The main difficulty lyes in the immediate succession to the Apostles if that were but once cleared we might bear with interruptions afterwards but the main seat of the controversie lies there whether the Apostles upon their withdrawing from the Government of Churches did substitute single persons to succeed them or no so that uâ—less that be cleared the very Deed of Gift is questioned and if that could be made appear all other things would speedily follow Yes say some that is clear For at Ierusalem Antioch and Rome it is evident that single persons were entrusted with the Government of Churches In Ierusalem say they Iames the brother of our LORD was made Bishop by the Apostles But whence doth that appear It is said from Hegesippus in Eusebius But what if he say no such thing his words are these 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which is there interpreted Ecclesiae administrationem una cum caeteris Apostolis suscepit And no more is thereby meant but that this Iames who is by the Antients conceived to be onely a Disciple before is now taken into a higher charge and invested in a power of governing the Church as the Apostles were His power it is plain was of the same nature with that of the Apostles themselves And who will go about to degrade them so much as to reduce them to the Office of Ordinary Bishops Iames in probability did exercise his Apostleship the most at Ierusalem where by the Scriptures we find him Resident and from hence the Church afterwards because of his not travelling abroad as the other Apostles did according to the Language of their own times they fixed the Title of Bishop upon him But greater difference we shall find in those who are pleaded to be successours of the Apostles At Antioch some as Origen and Eusebius make Ignatius to succeed Peter Ierome makes him the third Bishop and placeth Evodius before him Others therefore to solve that make them cotemporary Bishops the one of the Church of the Jewes the other of the Gentiles with what congruity to their Hypothesis of a single Bishop and Deacons placed in every City I know not but that Salvo hath been discussed before Come we therefore to Rome and here the succession is as muddy as the Tiber it self for here Tertullian Rufinus and several others place Clement next to Peter Irenaeus and Eusebius set Anacletus before him Epiphanius and Optatus both Anacletus and Cletus Augustinus and Damasus with others make Anacletus Cletus and Linus all to precede him What way shall we find to extrica e our selves out of this Labyrinth so as to reconcile it with the certainty of the Form of Government in the Apostles times Certainly if the Line of Succession fail us here when we most need it we have little cause to pin our Faith upon it as to the certainty of
that either there must be several Pastors taking the pastoral charge of one Congregation which is not very suitable with the principles of those I now dispute against or else many congregations in one City are all called but one Church and one flock which is the thing I plead for And therefore it is an observation of good use to the purpose in hand that the New Testâ—ment speaking of the Churches in a Province alwayes speakes of them in the plural number as the Churches of Iudaea Gal. 1. 22 1 Thes. 2 14. The Churches of Samaâ—iâ— and Galilee Acts 9. 31. The Churches of Syria and Câ—icia Acts 15. 41. The Churches of Galatia 1 Cor. 16. 1. Gal 1. 1 2. The Churches of Asia Rom. 16. 16. Rev. 1. 11. But when it speaks of any particular City then it is alwayes used in the Singular number as the Church at Jerusalem Acts 8. 1. 15 4 22. The Church at Antioch Acts 11. 26 13. 1. The Church at Corinth 1 Cor. 1. 2. 2 Cor. 1. 1â— and so of all the seven Churches of Asia the Church of Ephesus Smyrna c. So that we cannot find in Scripture the least footstep of any difference between a Church and the Christians of such a City whereas had the notion of a Church been restrained to a particular congregation doubtlesse we should have found some difference as to the Scriptures speaking of the several places For it is scarce imaginable that in all those Cities spoken of as for example Ephesus where Paul was for above two years together that there should be no more converts then would make one Congregation Accordingly in the times immediately after the Apostles the same language and custom continued still So Clement inscribes his Epistle 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Church of God which is at Rome to the Church of God which is at Corinth So by that it is plain that all the Believers at that time in Rome made up but one Church as likewise did they at Corinth Sâ— Polycarp in the Epistle written by him from the Church at Smyrna to the Church at Phylomilium 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and so in his Epistle to the Philippians 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Polycarp and the Elders with him to the Church which is at Philippi Origen compares the Church of God at Athens Corinth Alexandria and oâ—her places with the people of those several Cities and so the Churches Senate with the peoples and the Churches 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is his word chief Ruler with the Maior of those Cities implying thereby that as there was one civil Society in such places to make a City so there was a Society of Christians incorporated together to make a Church So that a Church setled with a full power belonging to it and exerc sing all acts of Church-discipline within its self was antiently the same with the Society of Christians in a City Not but that the name Church is attributed sometimes to Families in which sense Tertullian speaks Ubi duo aut tres sunt ibi Ecclesia est licet Laici And may on the same account be attributed to a small place such as many imagine the Church of Cenchrea to be it being a port to Corinth on the Sinus Sarònicus but Stephanus Byzantinus calls it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Suidas saith no more of it then that it is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Strabo and Pausanias only speak of the scituation of it as one of the poâ—ts of Corinth lying in the way from Tegaea to Argos nor is any more said of it by Pliny then that it answers to Lechaeum the port on the other side upon the Sinus Corinthiacus Ubbo Emmius in his description of old Greece calls both of them oppidula duo cum duobus praeclaris portubus in ora utriusq maris but withall adds that they were duo urbis emporia the two Marts of Corinth therefore in probability because of the great Merchandise of that City they were much frequented Cenchrea was about twelve furlongs distance from Corinth Where Pareus conjectures the place of the meeting of the Church of Corinth was because of the troubles they met with in the City and therefore they retired thither for greater conveniency and privacy which conjecture will appear not to be altogether improbable when we consider the furious opposition made by the Iews against the Christians at Corinth Acts 18. 12. and withall how usual it was both for Jews and Christians to have their place of meeting at a distance from the City As Acts 16. 13. They went out from Philippi to the River side where there was a Proseucha or a place of prayer where the Iews of Philippi accustomed to meet According to this interpretation the Church at Cenchrea is nothing else but the Church of Corinth there assembling as the Reformed Church at Paris hath their meeting place at Charenton which might be called the Church of Charenton from their publick Assemblies there but the Church of Paris from the Residence of the chief Officers and people in that City So the Church of Corinth might be called the Church at Cenchrea upon the same account there being no evidence at all of any setled Government there at Cenchrea distinct from that at Corinth So that this place which is the only one brought against that position I have laid down hath no force at all against it I conclude then that Churches and Cities were originally of equal extent and that the formal constitution of a Church lyes not in their capacity of assembling in one place but acting as a society of Christians imbodyed together in one City having Officers and Rulers among themselves equally respecting the whole number of Believers Which leads to the second thing the way and manner then used for the modelling the government of these Churches Which may be considered in a double period of time either before several Congregations in Churches were setled or after those we now call Parishes were divided First before distinct Congregations were setled and this as far as I can find was not only during the Apostles times but for a competent time after generally during the persecution of Churches For we must distinguish between such a number of Believers as could not conveniently assemble in one place and the distributing of Believers into their several distinct congregations I cannot see any reason but to think that in the great Churches of Ierusalem Antioch Ephesus and the like there were more Believers then could well meet together considering the state of those times but that they were then distributed into their several 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Centuries as the Athenians and Romans divided their people i. e. into several worshipping congregations with peculiar Officers I see no reason at all for it They had no such conveniences then of setling several congregations under their particular Pastors but all the Christians in a City looked upon
manner of Government in the Church was now The Bishop sitting as the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the Sanhedrin and the Presbyters 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as Ignatius expresseth it acting as the Common-Council of the Church to the Bishop the Bishop being as the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 answering to the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and the Presbytery as the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 answering to the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as Origen compares them Whereby he fully describes the form of Government in his time in the Church which was by an Ecclesiastical Senate and a President in it ruling the Society of Christians in every City So that the Presbytery of a great City joyning together for Government were never accounted a Provincial Assembly but onely the Senate for Government of the Church in the whole City The erecting Presbyteries for every particular congregation in a City is a stranger to the ancient constitution of Churches and hath given the greatest rise to the Independency of particular congregations For if every particular congregation be furnished with a Government within its self then men are apt presently to think that there is no necessity of subordination of it to any higher Church-power Whereas if that pâ—imitive constitution of Churches be held that they are Societies of Christians under an Ecclesiastical Senate in a City then it is evident that the congregations must truckâ—e under the great body as receiving their government by and their Officers from that Senate of the Church which superintends and orders the affairs of that whole Body of Christians residing in such a place And this crumbling of Church-power into every congregation is a thing absolutely disowned by the greatest and most learned Patrons of Presbytery beyond the Seas as may be seen both in Calvin Bâ—za Salmasius Blondel Gersome Bucer and others It is much disputed when the first division of Parochiall Congregations in Cities began Platina attributes it to Evaristus and so doth Damasus Hic Titulos in Urbe Roma divisit Presbyteris He divided the several Parish Churches to the Presbyters these were called then Tituli Baronius gives a double reason of the name either from goods belonging to the Princes Excâ—equer which have some sign imprinted upon them that it may be known whose they are So saith he the sign of the Cross was put upon the Churches to make it known that they were devoted to Gods Service or else they are called Tituli because the severall Presbyters did receive their Titles from them but by the Leave of the great Cardinal another Reason may be given of the name more proper then either of these It hath been observed by Learned men that the generall meetings of the Christians were in the Coemeteria or Dormitories of Christians So they called the Sepulchres then which were great and capacious Vaults fit to receive many people in them two chief grounds of the Christians meeting in those places the first was their own security because the Heathens looked on it as a matter of Religion manes temerare sepultos to disturb the ashes of the dead but the chief Reason was to encourage themselves to suffeâ— Martyrdom by the examples of those who had gone before them and lay buried there thence they were called Martyrum memoriae because they did call to mind their actions and constancy in the Faith Now from these Coemeteria was afterwards the original of Churches whence persons most reverenced for Piety were wont still to be buried in Churches not for any Holiness of the place but because in such places the Martyrs lay buried the Churches being raised over the Vaults wherein the Martyra lay intombed Now Churches being raised from these Coemeteries which were called memoriae Martyrum that they might still retain somwhat intimating their former use were called Tituli For Titulus as Santius observes is signum aliquod aut monumentum quod docet ibi latere aliquid aut accidisse cujus nolumus perire memoriam thence Statues are called Tituli So Gen. 35. 20. Erexit Iacob Titulum super Sepulchrum as the Vulgar Latine renders it and Gen. 28. 18. Surgens ergo Iacob mane tulit lapidem quem suâ—posuerat capiti suo erexit in titulum So Absalom 2 Sam. 18. 18. erexit sibi Titulum So that what was erected to maintain and preserve the memory of any thing was called Titulus and thence the Churches being built upon the Coemiteries of the Martyrs were on that account called Tituli because intended for the preservation of their memories This account of the Original of the name I leave to the judgement of Learned men but to proceed I confess it seems not probable to me that these Tituli were so soon divided as the time of Evaristus who lived in the time of Trajan when the persecution was hot against the Christians but Damasus seems not to believe himself for in the life of Dionysius â—e saith Hic Presbyteris ecclesias divisit coemeteria paroecias dioeceses instituit but most probably it began assoon as the Churches enjoyed any ease and peace it being so necessary for the convenient meeting of such a multitude of Christians as there was then In the life of Marcellus about fourty years after Dionysius we read of twenty five Titles in the Church of Rome of which number what use is made for interpreting the number 666. may be seen in Mr. Potters ingenuous Tract on that Subject But when afterwards these Titles were much increased those Presbyters that were placed in the ancient Titles which were the chief among them were called Cardinales Presbyteri which were then looked on as chief of the Clergy and therefore were the chief members of the Council of Presbyters to the Bishop So that at this day the Conclave at Rome and the Pope's Consistory is an evident Argument in this great degeneracy of it of the Primitive constitution of the Government of the Church there by a Bishop acting with his Colledge of Presbyters Neither was this proper to Rome alone but to all other great Cities which when the number of Presbyters was grown so great that they could not conveniently meet and joyn with the Bishop for ordering the Government of the Church there were some as the chief of them chosen out from the rest to be as the Bishops Council and these in many places as at Milan Ravenna Naples c. were called Cardinales Presbyteri as well as at Rome which were abrogated by Pius Quintus 1568 but the memory of them is preserved still in Cathedral Churches in the Chapter there where the Dean was nothing else but the Archipresbytâ—r and both Dean and Prebendaries were to be assistant to the Bishop in the regulating the Church-affairs belonging to the Citie while the Churches were contained therein So much shall suffice for the model of Government in the Churches while they were contained within the same precincts with the City its self We come in the
third place to consider what relation these Churches in greater Cities had one to another and to the lesser Cities which were under them And here the grand question to be discussed is this Whether the Churches in greater Cities by Apostolical institution had the Government Ecclesiastical not only of the lesser Villages under them but likewise of all lesser Cities under the civil Jurisdiction of the Metropolis The affirmative is of late asserted by some persons of great renown and learning The first I find maintaining this Hypothesis of the divine right of Metropolitans is Fregevilaeus Gantius one of the Reformed Church of France who hath spent a whole Chapter in his Palma Christianâ— to that purpose and hath made use of the same Arguments which have been since improved by all the advantages which the learning of a Reverend Drâ— could add to them But because this principle manifestly destroyes the main foundation of this discourse it is here requisite to examine the grounds on which it stands that thereby it may be fully cleared whether the subordination of less Churches to greater did onely arise from the mutual association of Churches among themselves or from Apostolical appointment and institution The two pillars which the divine right of Metropolitans is built upon are these First that the Cities spoken of in the New Testament in which Churches are planted were Metropoles in the civil Sense Secondly that the Apostles did so far follow the model of the civil Government as to plant Metropolitan Churches in those Cities If either of these prove infirm the Fabrick erected upon them must needs fall and I doubt not but to make it appear that both of them are I begin with the first The notion of a Metropolis is confessed to be this A City wherein the Courts of a civill Judicature were kept by the Roman Governours under whose Jurisdiction the whole Province was contained The Cities chiefly insisted on are the seven Cities of the Lydian Asia and Philippi which is called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 As for the Cities of the Proconsular Asia although the bounds and limits of it are not so clear as certainly to know whether all these Cities were comprehended under it or no Strabo telling us that Phrygia Lydia Caria and Mysia are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 very hard to be distinguished from one another it being true of all four which was said of Mysia and Phrygia 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Phrygian and Mysian Borders are distinct but it iâ— is hard to find them out For Laodicea is by Ptolomy referred to Caria Strabo and many others place it in Phrygia onely Stephanus Bizantinus placeth it in Lydia but granting all that is produced by the late most excellent Primate of Armagh in his Learned Discourse of the Proconsular Asia to prove all these seven Cities to be in the bounds of this Lydian Asia yet it is far from being evident that all these Cities were Metropoles in the Civil Sense For Strabo tells us That the Romans did not divide these places by Nations â—but according to the Diocâ—sses wherein they kept their Courts and exercised Judicature These Cities wherein the Courts of Judicature were kept were the Metropoles and no other Of five of them Laodicea Smyrna Sardis Ephesus and Pergamus Pliny saith that the Conventus the Civil Courts were kept in them and they had Jurisdiction over the other places by him mentioned but for the other two Thyatira and Philadelphia Philadelphia is expresly mentioned as one of those Cities which was under the jurisdictio Sardiana so far was it from being a Metropoles of its self and Thyatira mentioned as one of the ordinary Cities without any addition of Honour at all to it And for Philadelphia it was so â—ar unlikely to be a Metropolis that Strabo tells us it was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 very subject to Earth-quakes and therefore had very few inhabitants those that â—â—â— live most part in the fields where they have 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a very rich soil but Strabo for all that wonders at the boldness of the men that durst to venture their lives there and most of all admires what was in those mens heads who first built a City there Is it then any wayes probable that this should be chosen for a Metropolis in such an abundance of fair and rich Cities as lay thereabout But a Salvo is found out for Plinyes not mentioning them as Metropoles because the addition of these two mother Cities seemeth to have been made when Vespasian added those many new Provinces to the old Government which Suâ—tonius speaks of but this Salvo doth not reach the sore For first Pliny wrote his natural History not in the beginning but toward the latter end of the Empire of Flavius Vespasianus when Titus had been six times Consul â—s he himself saith in his Preface therefore if there had been any such change Pliny would have mentioned it Secondly the Provinces added by Vespasian are expresly set down by Suâ—â—oniuâ— viz. Achaia Lysia Rhodus Byzantium Samos Thracia Cilivia Comagena not the least mention of the Lydian or Procoâ—sular Asia or any alteration made in the Metropolis there But yet there is a further attempt made to make Philadelphia a Metropolis which is from a subscription of Eustathius in the Council of Constantinople sub Menna Act 5. who calls himself the Bishop of the Metropolis of Philadelphia but what validity there is in such a subscription in the time of the fifth Century to prove a Metropolis in the first lâ—t any one judge that doth but consider how common â— thing it was to alter Metropoles especially after the new disposition of the Roman Empire by Constantinâ— But if we do stand to the Notitiâ— to determine this controversie which are certainly more to be valued then a single subscription the Metropolitanship of these Cities of the Lydian Asia will be irrecoverably overthrown For in the old Notitia taken out of the Vatican MS. and set forth with the rest by Caroâ—â—â—â— Sancto-Paulo in his Appendix to his Geographia sacra Ephesus is made the Metropolis of the Province of Asia Sardis of Lydia Laodicea of Phrygia Capatiana as it is there written for Pacatiana but Pergamus placed in the Province of Caesarla Cappadocia Philadelphia under Sardis with Thyatyra In the Notitia attributed to Hierâ—clâ—s under the Metropolis of Ephesus is placed Smyrna and Pergamuâ— under Sardiâ— Thyatyra and Philadelphia so likewise in the Notitia of the French Kings Library So that neither in the Civil noâ— Ecclesiastical sense can we find these seven Cities to be all Metropoles We therefore observe St. Pauls course and leaving Asia we come into Macedonia where we are told that Philippi was the Metropolis of Macedonia I know not whether with greater incongruity to the Civil or Ecclesiastical sense in â—oth which I doubt not but to make it appear that Philippi was not the
Metropolis of Macedonia and therefore the Bishops there mentioned could not be the Bishops of the several Cities under the jurisdiction of Philippi but must be understood of the Bishops resident in that City We begin with it in the Civil sense which is the foundation of the other It is confessed not to have been a Metropolis during its being called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 it being by Pausanias called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 By Theophylact out of an old Geographer as it is supposed it is said to be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and is it not very improbable that so small a City as it is acknowledged to be by Dio and others should be the Metropolis of Macedonia where were at least one hundred and fifty Cities as Pliny and Pomponius Mela tell us by boâ—h whom Philippi is plâ—ced in Thracia and not in Macedonia But two arguments are brought to prove Philippi to have been a Metropolis the first is from St. Luke calling it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Acts 16. 12. The first City of that Part of Macedonia but rendred by the learned Doctor the prime City of the province of Macedonia but it would be worth knowing where 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in all the Notitiae of the Roman Empire was translated a Province and it is evident that Luke calls it the first City not ratione dignitatis but ratione 〈◊〉 in regard of its scituation and not its dignity So Camerarius understands Luke hanc esse primam coloniam paâ—tis seu Plagae Macedonicae nimirum a Thracia vicinia iter in Macedoniam ordiens It is the first City of that part of Macedonia when one goes from Thracia into it And so it appears by Dio describing the scituation of Philippi that it was the next town to Neapolis only the Mountain Symbolon comeing between them and Neapolis being upon the shore and Philippi built up in the plain near the Mountain Pangaeus where Brutus and Cassius incamped themselves its being then the first City of entrance into Macedonia proves no more that it was the Metropolis of Macodonia then that Calice is of France or Dover of England But it is further pleaded that Philippi was a Colonie and therefore it is most probable that the seat of the Roman Judicature was there But to this I answer first that Philippi was not the only Colonie in Macedonia for Pliny reckons up Cassandria Paria and others for which we must understand that Macedonia was long since made a Province by Paulus and in the division of the Roman Provinces by Augustus Strabo reckons it with Illyricum among the Provinces belonging to the Roman people and Senate and so likewise doth Dio. But it appears by Suetonius that Tiberius according to the custom of the Roman Emperours in the danger of War in the Provinces took it into his own hands but it was reâ—urned by Claudius to the Senatâ— again together with Achaia thence Dio speaking of Macedonia in the time of Tiberius saith it was governed 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is by those who were 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the praefecti Casaris such as were sent by the Emperour to be his Presidents in the provinces the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 were the Proconsuli who were chosen by lot after their Consulship into the several Provinces and therefore Dio expresseth Claudius his returning Macedonia into the Senates hands by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 he put it to the choyce of the Senate again Now Macedonia having been thus long a Province oâ— the Roman Empire what probability is there because Philippi was a Colonie therefore it must be the Metropolis of Macedonia Secondly We find not the least evidence either in Scripture or elsewhere that the Proconsul of Macedonia had his residence at Philippi yea we have some evidence against it out of Scripture Acts 16 20 22. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and brought them to the Magistrates if there had been the Tribunal of a Proconsul here we should certainly have had it mentâ—oned as Gallio Proconsul of Achaia is mentioned in a like case at Corinth Acts 18. 12. Two sorts of Magistrates are here expressed the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which seem to be the Rulers of the City the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to be the Duumviri of the Colonie or else the Deputies of the Proconsul residing there but I incline rather to the former 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 being only a Duumvir but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is a Praetor as Heinsius observes from the Glossary of H. Stephen For every Colonie had a Duumvirate to rule it answering to the Consuls and Praetors at Rome But all this might have been spared when we consider how evident it is that Thessalonica was the Metropolis of Macedonia as appears by Antipater in the Greek Epigram 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And the Praefectus prâ—torio Illyâ—ici had 〈…〉 dence aâ— Thâ—ssalonica as Theodoreâ— tells us 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Thâ—ssalonica was a great populous City where the Leiutenant of Illyricum did reside and so in probability did the Viâ—arius Macedonia It is called the Metropolis of Macedonia likewise by Socrâ—â—â—s and in the Ecclesiastical sense it is so called by Aetius the Bishop thereof in the Council of Sardicaâ— and Carolus à Sancto Paulo thinks it was not only the Metropolis of the Province of Macedonia but of the whole Diocèâ—s which in the East was much larger then the Province I suppose he means that which answered to the Vâ—carius Macedoniae And thence in the Councils of Ephesus and Chalcedon the subscription of the Bishop of Thâ—ssalonicâ— waâ— next to the Patriarchs But for Philippi the same Author acknowledgeth it not to have been a Metropolitan Church in the first six Centuries but after that Macedonia was divided into prima and secunda which was after the divâ—sion of it in the Empire into prima and salutaris then Philippi came to have the honorary Title of a Metropolitan although in Hierocles his Notitia Philippi is placed as the twenty first City under the Metropoles of Thâ—ssalonica So much to evidence the weakness of the first pillar viz. that these Cities were Metropoles in the civil sense and this being taken away the other falls of its self for if the Apostles did model the Ecclesiastical Government according to the Civil then Metropolitan Churches were planted only in Metropolitan Cities and these being cleared not to have been the latter it is evident they were not the former But however let us see what evidence is brought of such a subordination of all other Churches to the Metropolitans by the institution of the Apostles The only evidence produced out of Scripture for such a subordination and dependance of the Churches of lesser Cities upon the greater is from Actâ— 16. 1 4 compared with Acts 15. 23. the argument runs thus The
question was started at Antioch Acts 14. 26. with Acts 15. 2. from thence they sent to Ierusalem for a resolution the decree of the Council there concerns not only Aâ—tioch but Syria and Cilicia which were under the Jurisdiction of Antioch and therefore Metropolitan Church 〈…〉 e jure divino I am afraid the argument would sc 〈…〉 ow its self in the dress of a Syllogism Thus it runs If upon the occasion of the question at Antioch the decree of the Apostles made at Ierusalem concern all the Churches of Syria and Cilicia then all these Churches had a dependance upon the Metropolis of Antioch but the anâ—ecedent is true therefore the consequent Let us see how the argument will do in another â—orm If upon the occasion of the question at Antioch the decree of the Apostles concerned all the Churches of Christians conversing with Jews then all these Churches had dependance upon the Church of Antioch But c. How thankfull would the Papists have been if onely Rome had been put instead of Antiochâ— and then the conclusion had been true what ever the premises were But in good earnest doth the Churches of Syria and Cilicia being bound by this Decree prove their subordination to Antioch or to the Apostles Were they bound because Antioch was their Metropolis or because they were the Apostles who resolved the question but were not the Churches of Phrygia and Galatia bound to observe these decrees as well as others For of these it is said that the Apostles went through the Cities of them delivering the decrees to keep as it is expressed Acts 16. 4. compared with the 6. verse Or do the decrees of the Apostles concern only those to whom they are inscribed and upon whose occasion they are penned Then by the same reason Pauls Epistles being written many of them upon occasions as that to the Corinthians being directed to the Metropolis of Corinth doth only concern the Church of that City and those of Achaia that were subject to the jurisdiction of the City and so for the rest of the Epistles A fair way to make the Word of God of no effect to us because for sooth we live not in obedience to those Metropoles to which the Epistles were directed From whence we are told how many things we may understand by this notion of Metropolitans Especially why Ignatius superscribes his Epistle to the Romans 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to the Church which preâ—ides in the place of the Roman region or the suburbicariâ—n Provinces But let us see whether this place may not be understood better without the help of this notion Casaubon calls it locutionem barbarâ—m Vedelius is more favourable to it and thinks si non elegans saltem viâ—ii libera est and explains it by the suburbicarian Provinces and makes the sense of it to be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the place which is the Roman region and parallels it with the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Luke 9. 10. Bellarmine thinks he hath â—ound the Popes universal power in his 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but methinks the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 should hardly be rendred Orbis universus unless Bellarmine were no more skil'd in Greek then Casaubon thinks he was whom he calls in the pâ—ace forecited hominem Graecarum literarum prorsus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The most ingenuous conjecture concerning this place is that of our learned Mr. Thorndike The word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 saith he is here used as many times besides speaking of those places which a man would neither call Cities nor Towns as Acts 27 2. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 being to sail by the places of Asia 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 it is plain it signifies the countrey 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 then must necessarily signifie here the Vaticane lying in the Fields as a suburb to Rome and being the place where St. Peter was buried and where the Iews of Rome then dwâ—lt as we learn by Philo legatione ad Caium out of whom he produceth a large place to that purpose and so makes this the Church of the Jewish Christians the Vaticane being then the Iewry of Rome but there being no clear evidence of any such distinction of Churches there and as little reason why Ignatius should write to the Church of the Jewish Christians and not to the Church of the Gentile Christians I therefore embrace his sense of the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for the Vatican but explain it in another way viz. as we have already shewed that the chief places of meeting for the Christians in Gentile Rome was in the Coemeteries of the Martyrs now these Coemeteria were all of them without the City and the Coemeteria where Peter Linus Cletus and some other of the Primitive Martyrs lay interr'd in the Vatican beyond the River Tiber. So Damasus in the life of Cletus Qui etiam sepultus est juxta corpus B. Petri in Vaticano The Church then in the pâ—ace of the region of the Romans is the Christian-Church of Rome assembling chiefly in the Coemeteries of the Vatican or any other of those Vaults which were in the Fields at a good distance from the City But yet there is one argument more for Metropolitans and that is from the importance of the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which is taken to signifie both the City and Countrey and so the inscription of Clemens his Epistle is explained 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. e. the Church of God dwelling about Rome to the Church dwelling about Corinth whereby is supposed to be comprehended the whole Territories which being these were Metropoles takes in the whole Province And so Polycarp 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 But all this ariseth from a mistake of the signification of the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which signifies not so much accolere as incolere and therefore the old Latin Version renders it Ecclâ—siae Dei quae est Philippis 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 one that removes from one City to sojourn in another And the ground of attributing that name to the Christian Churches was either because that many of the first Christians being Jews they did truly 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 being as strangers out of their own countrey or else among the Christians because by reason of their continual persecutions they were still put in mind of their flitting uncertain condition in the World their 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 countrey citizenship being in Heaven Of this the Apostles often tell them from hence iâ— came to signifie the Society of such Christians so living together which as it encreased so the notion of the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 encreased and so went from the City into the countrey and came not from the countrey into the City for if 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 should be taken for accolere then it necessarily follows that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 cannot signifie the Church of Rome and the Territories belonging to it but the Church adjacent to
with them as may be seen in the actions of Paschasinus the Roman Legat in the Council of Chalcedon From whence forward the great Leviâ—than by his tumbling in the waves endeavoured to get the Dominion of all into his hands but God hath at last put a hook into his nostrils and raised up the great instruments of Reformation who like the Sword fish have so pierced into his bowels that by his tumbling he may only hasten his approaching ruine and give the Church every day more hopes of seeing its self freed from the tyranny of an Uâ—urped power By this Scheme and draught now of the increase of the Churches power nothing can be more evident then that it rise not from any divine institution but only from positive Ecclesiastical Laws made according to the several states and conditions wherein the Church was which as it gradually grew up so waâ— the power of the Church by mutual consent fitted to the state of the Church in its several ages Which was the fiâ—st argument that the Primitive Church did not conceive its self bound to observe any one unalterable form of Government This being the chief the rest that follow will sooner be dispatched The second is from the great varieties as to Government which were in several Churches What comes from divine right is observed unalterably in one uniform constant tenour but what we find so much diversified according to several places we may have ground to look on only as an Ecclesiastical constitution which was followed by every Church as it judged convenient Now as to Church Government we may find some Churches without Bishops for a long time some but with one Bishop in a whole Nation many Cities without any where Bishops were common many Churches discontinue Bishops for a great while where they had been no certain rule observed for modelling their Dâ—ocesses where they were still continued Will not all these things make it seem very improbable that it should be an Apostolical institution that no Church should be without a Bishop First then some whole Nations seem to have been without any Bishops at all if we may believe their own Historians So if we may believe the great Antiquaries of the Church of Scotland that Church was governed by their Culdei as they called their Presbyters without any Bishop over them for a long time Iohannes Maior speaks of their instruction in the faith per Sacerdotes Monachos sine Episcopis Scoti in fide eruditi but least that should be interpreted only of theâ—r conversion Iohannes Fordònus is clear and full to their government from the time of their conversion about A. D 263. to the coming of Palladius A. D. 430. that they were only governed by Presbyters and Monks Ante Palladii adventum habebant Scoti fidei Dâ—ctores ac Sacramentorum Ministratores Presbyteros solunmodo vel Monachos ritum sequentes Ecclesiae Primitivae So much mistaken was that learned man who saith That neither Beda nor any other affirms that the Scots were formerly ruled by a Presbyterie or so much as that they had any Presbyter among them Neither is it any wayes sufficient to say that these Presbyters did derive their authority from some Bishops for however we see here a Church governed without such or if they had any they were only chosen from their Culdei much after the custom of the Church of Alexandria as Hector Boethiuâ— doth imply And if we believe Philostorgius the Gothick Churches were planted and governed by Presbyters for above seventy years for so long it was from their first conversion to the time of Ulphilas whom he makes their first Bishop And great probability there is that where Churches were planted by Presbyters as the Church of France by Andochius and Benignus that afterwards upon the encrease of Churches and Presbyters to rule them they did from among themselves choose one to be as the Bishop over them as Pothinus was at Lyons For we nowhere read in those early plantations of Churches that where there were Presbyters already they sent to other Churches to derive Episcopâ—l ordination from them Now for whole Nations having but one Bishop we have the testimony of Sozomen that in Scythia which by the Romans was called Masia inferior 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Although there were many Cities they had but one Bishop The like Godignus relates of the Abâ—ssine Churches Though their Territories be of vast extent there is but only one Bishop in all those Dominions who is the Bishop of Abuna And where Bishops were most common it is evident they looked not on it as an Apostolical rule for every City to have a Bishop which it must have if it was an Apostolical institution for the Church to follow the civil Government Theodoret mentions 800 Churches under his charge in whose Diâ—cess Ptolomy placeth many other Cities of note besides Cirus as Ariseria Regia Ruba Heraclea c. In the Province of Tripoly he reckons nine Cities which had but five Bishops as appears by the Notitia Ecclesiae Africanae In Thracia every Bishop had several Cities under hâ—m The Bishop of Heraclea that and Panion the Bishop of Byze had it and Arcadiapolis of Coela had it and Callipolis Sabsadia had it and Aphrodisias It is needless to produce more instances of this nature either ancient or modern they being so common and obvious But further we find Bishops discontinued for a long time in the greatest Churches For if there be no Church without a Bishop where was the Church of Rome when from the Martyrdome of Fabian and the banishment of Lucius the Church was governed only by the Clergy So the Church of Carthage when Cyprian was banished the Church of the East when Meletius of Antioeh Eusebius Samosatenus Pelagius of Laodicea and the rest of the Orthodox Bishops were banished for ten years space and Flavianus and Diodorus two Presbyters ruled the Church of Antioch the mean while The Church of Carthage was twenty four years without a Bishop in the time of Hunerik King of the Vandals and when it was offered them that they might have a Bishop upon admitting the Arrians to a free exercise of their Religion among them their answer was upon those terms Ecclesia Episcopum non delictatur habere and Balsamon speaking of the Christian Churches in the East determines it neither safe nor necessary in their present state to have Bishops set up over them And lastly for their Diocesses it is evident there was no certain Rule for modelling them In some places they were far less then in others Generally in the primitive and Eastern Churches they were very small and little as far more convenient for the end of them in the government of the Churches under the Bishops charge it being observed out of Walafridus Strabo by a learned man Fertur in Orientis partibus per singulas urbes praefecturas singulas
Presbyterii honore provexit What more plain and evident then that here a Presbyter ordained a Presbyter which we now here read was pronounced null by Theophilus then Bishop of Alexandria or any others that at time It is a known instance that in the ordination of Pelagius first Bishop of Rome there were only two Bishops concurred and one Presbyter whereas according to the fourth Canon of the Nicene Council three Bishops are absolutely required for Ordinaâ—ion 〈…〉 Bishop either â—hen Pelagius was no Canonical Bishop and so the point of succession thereby fails in the Church of Rome or else a Presbyter hath the same intrinsecal power of Ordination which a Bishop hath but it is onely restrained by Ecclesiastical Lawes In the time of Eustathius Bishop of Antioch which was done A. D. 328 as Iacobus Gothâ—â—redus proves till the time of the ordination of Paulinus A. D. 362. which was for thirty four years space when the Church was governed by Paulinus and his Colleagues withdrawing from the publick Assemblies it will be hard to say by whom the Ordinations were performed all this while unless by Paulinus and his Collegues In the year 452. it appears by Leo in his Epistle to Rusticus Narbonensis that some Presbyters took upon them to ordain as Bishops about which he was consulted by Rusticus what was to be done in that Case with those so ordained Leo his resolution of that Case is observable Siqui autem Clerici ab ist is pseudo-Episcopis in iis Ecclesiis ordinati sunt quae ad prâ—prios Episcopos pertinebant ordinatio â—orum cum consensn judicio praesidentium facta est potest rata haberi ita ut in ipsis Ecclesiis perseverent Those Clergy men who were ordained by such as took upon them the Office of Bishops in Churches belonging to proper Bishops if the Ordination were performed by the consent of the Bishops it may be looked on as valid and those Presbyters remain in their Office in the Church So that by the consent ex post facto of the true Bishops those Presbyters thus ordained were looked on as Lawful Presbyteâ—s which could not be unless their ordainers had an intrinsecal power of Ordination which was onely restrained by the Laws of the Church for if they have no power of Ordination it is impossible they should confer any thing by their Oâ—dâ—nation If to this it be answered that the validity of their Ordination did depend upon the consent of the Bishops and that Presbyters may ordain if delegated thereto by Bishops as Paulinus might ordain on that account at Antioch It is easily answered that this very power of doing it by delegation doth imply an intrinsecal power in themselves of doing it For iâ— Presbyters be forbidden ordaining others by Scriptures then they can neither do it in their own persons nor by delegation from others Fâ—â— Qâ—od alicui suo nomine â—on lices nec 〈…〉 Anâ—â—â—â—â— Rule oâ— Cyprian must hold true Non aliquid câ—i â—â—â—â— largiri potest humana indulgentia ubi intercâ—dit legâ—â— tribuit Divina â—râ—scriptio There can be no dispensing with Divine Lawes which must be if that may be delegated to other persons which was required of men in the Office wherein they are And if Presbyters have power of conferring nothing by their Ordination how can an after-consent of Bishops make that Act of theirs valid for conserring Right and Power by it It appears then that this Power was restrained by the Lawes of the Church for preserving Uâ—ity in its self but yet so that in case of necessity what was done by Presbyters was not looked on as invalid But against this the case of Ischyras ordained as it is said a Presbyter by Collutbus and pronounced null by the Council of Alexandria is commonly pleaded But there is no great difficulty in answering it For first the pronouncing such an Ordination null doth not evidence that they looked on the power of Ordination as belonging of Divine right onely to Bishops for we find by many instances that acting in a bare contempt of Ecclesiastical Canons was sufficient to degrade any from being Presbyters Secondly If Ischyras had been ordained by a Bishop there were câ—rcumstances enough to induce the Council to pronounce it null First as done out of the Diocess in which case Ordinations are nulled by Concil Arel cap. 13. Secondly done by open and pronounced Schismaticks Thirdly done sine titulo 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and â—o nulled by the Canons then Thirdly Colluthns did not act as a Presbyter in ordaining but as a Bishop of the Meletian party in Cynus as the Clergy of Mareotis speaking of Ischyras his ordination 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by Collytbus a Presbyter making shew of being a Bishop and is supposed to have been ordained a Bishop by Meletius More concerning this may be seen in Blondel who fully clears all the particulars here mentiâ—â—eâ— So that notwithstanding this Instance nothing appears but that the power of Ordination was restrained only by Ecclesiastical Lawâ— The last thing to prove that the Church did act upon prudence in Church-Government is from the many restraints in other cases made by the Church for restraint of that Liberty which was allowed by Divine Laws He must be a stranger to the ancient Canons and Constitutions of the Church that takes not notice of such restraints made by Canons as in reference to observation of several Rites and Customes in the Churches determined by the Provincial Synods of the several Churches for which purpose their Provincial Synods were still kept up in the Eastern Church as appears by the Testimony of Firmilian in his Epistle to Cyprian Qua ex causa necessariò apud nos fit ut per singulos annos Seniores Praepositi in unum conveniamus ad disponenda ea quae curae nostrae commissa sunt Ut si quae graviora sunt communi consilio dirigantur lapsis quoque fratribus c. medela quaeratur non quasi à nobis remissionem peccatorum consequâ—ntâ—r sed â—t per nos ad intelligentiam delictorum suorum convertantur Domino pleniùs satisfacere cogantur The several orders about the Discipline of the Church were detâ—rmined in these Synods as to which he that would find a command in Scripture for their ordeâ—s about the Catechumeni and Lapsi will take pains to no purpose the Church ordering things it self for the better Regulating the several Churches they were placed over A demonstrative Argument that these things came not from Divine command is from the great diversiâ—y of these customes in several places of which besides Socrates Sozomen largely speaks and may easily be gathered from the History of the several Churches When the Church began to enjoy ease and liberty and thereby had opportunity of enjoying greater conveniency for Councils we find what was detrrmined by those Councils were entred into a Codex Canonum for that purpose which
was observed next to the Scriptures not from any Obligation of the things themselves but from the conduceableneâ—s of those things as they judged them to the preserving the Peace and Unity of the Church CHAP. VIII An Inquiry into the Iudgement of Reformed Divines concerning the unalterable Divine Right of particular Forms of Church-Government wherein it is made appear that the most â—minent Dâ—vines of the Reformation did never conceive any one Form necessary manifested by three arguments 1. From the judgment of those who make the Form of Church-Government mutable and to depend upon the wisdom of the Magistrate and Church This cleared to have been the judgement of most Divines of the Church of England since the Reformation Archbishop Cranmers judgment with others of the Reformatiion in Edward the Sixth's time now first published from his authentick MS. The same ground of setling Episcopacy in Queen Elizabeth's time The judgement of Archbishop Wâ—itgift Bishop Bridges Dr. â—oe Mr. Hooker largely to that purpose in King Iames his time The Kings own Opinion Dr. Suâ—clâ—ffe Since of â—rakanâ—horp Mr. Hales Mr. Chillingworth The Testimony of Forraign Divines to the same purpose Chemnitius Zanchy French Divines Peter Moulâ—n Fregevil Blondel Bochartus Amyraldus Other learned men Groâ—â—uâ— Lord Bacon c. 2. Those who look upon equality as the Primitive Form yet judge Episcopacy lawful Augustane Confession Melâ—nchthon Arâ—icuâ—â— Smaâ—caldici Prince of Anhalt Hyperius Hemingius The practice of most Forraign Churches Câ—lvin and Beza both approving Episcopacy and Diocesan Churches Salmasius c. 3. Those who judge Episcopacy to be the Primitive Form yet look not on it as necâ—ssary Bishop Iewel Fulk Field Bishop Downam Bishop Bancâ—oâ—t Bishop Morton Bishop Andrews Saravia Francis Mason and others The Conclusion hence laid in Order to Peace Principles conducing thereto 1. Prudence must be used in Church-Government at last confessed by all parties Independents in elective Synods and Church Covenants admission of Members number in Congregations Presbyterians in Classes and Synods Lay-Elders c. Eâ—iscopal in Diocesses Causes Rites c. 2. That Prudence best which comes nearest Primitive practice A Presidency for life over an Ecclesiastical Senate shewed to be that Form in order to it Presbyteries to be restored Diocesses lâ—ssened Provincial Synods kept twice a year The reasonableness and easiness of accommodation shewed The whole concluded HAving thus far proceeded through Divine assistance in our intended method and having found nothing determining the necessity of any one Form of Government in the several Laws of Nature and Christ nor in the practice of Apostles or Primitive Church the only thing possible to raise a suspition of Novelty in this opinion is that it is contrary to the judgement of the several Churches of the Reformation I know it is the last Asylum which many run to when they are beaten off from their imaginary Fancies by pregnant Testimonies of Scripture and Reason to shelter themselves under the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of some particular persons to whom their understandings are bored in perpetual slavery But if men would but once think their understandings at age to judge for themselves and not make them live under a continual Pupillage and but take the pains to travel over the several Churches of the Reformation they would find themselves freed of many strange misprisions they were possessed with before and understand far better the ground and reason of their pitching upon their several Forms than they seem to do who found all things upon a Divine Right I believe there will upon the most impartial survey scarce be one Church of the Reformation brought which doth imbrace any Form of Government because it looked upon that Form as onely necessary by an unalterable standing Law but every one took up that Form of Government which was judged most suitable to the state and condition of their severall Churches But that I may the better make this appear I shall make use of some Arguments whereby to demonstrate that the most eminent Divines that have lived since the Reformation have been all of this mind That no one Form is determined as necessary for the Church of God in all ages of the World For if many of them have in thesi asserted the Form of Church-Government mutable if those who have thought an equality among Ministers the Primitive Form have yet thought a Government by Episcopacy lawfull and usefull If lastly those who have been for Episcopacy have not judged it necessary then I suppose it will be evident that none of them have judged any one Form taken exclusively of others to be founded upon an unalterable Right For whatsoever is so founded is made a necessary duty in all Churches to observe it and it is unlawfull to vary from it or to change it according to the prudence of the Church according to the state and condition of it I now therefore undertake to make these things out in their order First I begin with those who have in thesi asserted the mutability of the Form of Church Government Herein I shall not follow the English humour to be more acquainted with the state of Forreign places then their own but it being of greatest concernment to know upon what accounts Episcopal Government was setled among our selves in order to our submission to it I shall therefore make inquiry into the judgement of those persons concerning it who either have been instrumental in setling it or the great defenders of it after its setlement I doubt not but to make it evident that before these late unhappy times the main ground for setling Episcopal Government in this Nation was not accounted any pretence of Divine Right but the conveniency of that Form of Church Government to the State and condition of this Church at the time of its Reformation For which we are to consider that the Reformation of our Church was not wrought by the Torrent of a popular fury nor the Insurrection of one part of the Nation against another but was wisely gravely and maturely debated and setled with a great deal of consideration I meddle not with the times of Henry 8. when I will not deny but the first quickning of the Reformation might be but the matter of it was as yet rude and undigested I date the birth of it from the first setlement of that most excellent Prince Edward 6. the Phosphorus of our Reformation Who A. D. 1547. was no sooner entred upon his Throne but some course was presently taken in order to Reformation Commissioners with Injunctions were dispatched to the several parts of the Land but the main business of the Reformation was referred to the Parliament call'd November 4. the same year when all former Statutes about Religion were recall'd as may be seen at large in Mr. Fox and Liberty allowed for professing the Gospel according to the principles of Reformation all banished persons for Religion being call'd home Upon this for the better establishing of
onely to poor and private Men. Nature and Religion agree in this that neither of them had a hand in this Heraldry of secundum sub supra all this comes from composition and agreement of men among themselves wherefore this abuse of Christianity to make it Lacquey to Ambition is a vice for which I have no extraordinary name of Ignominy and an ordinary I will not give it lest you should take so transcendent a vice to be but trivial Thus that grave and wise person whose words savour of a more then ordinary tincture of a true Spirit of Christianity that scorns to make Religion a footstool to pride and ambition We see plainly he makes all difference between Church-Officers to arise from consent of parties and not from any Divine Law To the same purpose Master Chillingworth propounds this Question among many others to his adversary Whether any one kind of these external Forms and Orders and Government be so necessary to the being of a Church but that they may be diverse in divers places and that a good and peaceable Christian may and ought to submit himself to the Government of the place where he lives whosoever he be Which Question according to the tenour of the rest to which it is joyned must as to the former part be resolved in the Negative and as to the latter in the Affirmative Which is the very thing I have been so long in proving of viz. that no one Form of Church-Government is so necessary to the being of a Church but that a good and peaceable Christian may and ought to conform himself to the Government of that place where he lives So much I suppose may suffice to shew that the Opinion which I have asserted is no stranger in our own Nation no not among those who have been professed Defenders of the Ecclesiastical Government of this Church Having thus far acquainted our selves with the state and customes of our own Countrey we may be allowed the liberty of visiting Forraign Churches to see how far they concur with us in the matter in question The first person whose judgement we shall produce asserting the mutability of the Form of Church-Government is that great light of the German Church Chemnitius whom Brightman had so high an opinion of as to make him to be one of the Angels in the Churches of the Revelation He discoursing about the Sacrament of Order as the Papists call it layes down these following Hypotheses as certain truth◠1. Non esse Dei verbo mandatum qui vel quot tales gradus seu ordines esse debeant 2. Non fuisse tempore Apostolorum in omnibus Ecclesiis semper cosdem totidem gradus seu ordines id quod ex Epistolis Pauli ad diversas Ecclesias scriptis manifestè colligitur 3. Non fuit tempore Apostolorum talis distributio graduum illorum quin saepius unus idem omnia illa officia quae ad ministerium pertinent sustineret Liberae igitur fuerunt Apostolorum tempore tales ordinationes habitâ ratione ordinis decori aedificationis c. Illud Apostolorum exemplum Primitiva Ecclesia eadem ratione simili libertate imitata est Gradus enim officior um ministerii distributi fuerunt non autem eadem plane ratione sicut in Corinthiaca vel Ephesina Ecclesia sed pro ratione circumstantiarum cujusque Ecclesiae unde colligitur quae fuerit in distributione illorum graduum libertas The main thing he asserts is the Curches freedom and liberty as to the orders and degrees of those who superintend the affairs of the Church which he builds on a threefold foundation 1. That the Word of God no where commands what or how many degrees and Orders of Ministers there shall be 2. That in the Apostles times there was not the like number in all Churches as is evivident from Pauls Epistles 3. That in the Apostles times in some places one person did manage the several Offices belonging to a Church Which three Propositions of this Learned Divine are the very basis and foundation of all our foregoing Discourse wherein we have endeavoured to prove these several things at large The same Learned person hath a set Discourse to shew how by degrees the Offices in the Church did rise not from any set or standing Law but for the convenient managery of the Churches Affairs and concludes his Discourse thus Et haec prima graduum seu ordinum origo in Ecclesia Apostolica ostendit quae causa quae ratio quis usus finis esse debeat hujusmodi seu graduum seu ordinum ut scilicet pro ratione coetus Ecclesiastici singula Officia quae ad ministerium pertinent commodius rectius diligentius ordine cum aliqua gravitate ad aedificationem obeantur The summ is It appears by the practice of the Apostolical Church that the state condition and necessity of every particular Church ought to be the Standard and measure what Offices and Degrees of persons ought to be in it As to the uncertain number of Officers in the Churches in Apostolical times we have a full and express Testimony of the Famous Centuriatours of Magdeburge Quot verò in qualibet Ecclesia personae Ministerio functae sint non est in Flistoriis annotatum nec usquam est praeceptum ut aeque multi in singulis essent sed prout paucitas aut multitudo coetus postulavit ita pauciores aut plures administerium Ecclesiae sunt adhibiti We see by them there is no other certain rule laid down in Scripture what number of persons shall act in the governing every Church onely general prudence according to the Churches necessity was the ground of determining the number then and must be so still The next person whose judgement is fully on our side is a person both of Learning and Moderation and an earnest restorer of Discipline as well as Doctrine in the Church I mean Hieron Zanchy who in several places hath expressed his judgement to the purpose we are now upon The fullest place is in his Confession of Faith penned by him in the LXX year of his Age and if ever a man speaks his mind it must be certainly when he professeth his judgement in a solemn manner by way of his last Will and Testament to the world that when the Soul is going into another world he may leave his mind behind him Thus doth Zanch in that Confession in which he declares this to be his judgement as to the form of Church-Government That in the Apostles times there were but two orders under them viz. of Pastors and Teachers but presently subjoyns these words Interea tamen non improbamus Patres quod juxta variam tum verbi dispensandi tum regendae Ecclesiae rationem varios quoqu◠ordines ministrorum multiplicarint quando id iis liberum fuit sicut nobis quando constat id ab illis factum honestis de causis
Luther Calvin Beza and all the Reformed Churches Non habent illi scio distinctos à Presbyteris eisque in ordinandi excommunicandi potestate superiores Episcopos At Imparitatem istam quod fecit Aërius non verbo Dei repugnare docent non damnant eam vel in nostrâ vel in universali per annos super mille quingentos Ecclesiâ Per verbum Dei Ius Divinum liberum licitum utrumvis censent vel Imparitatem istam admittere vel Paritatem In arbitrio hoc esse ac potestate cujusvis Ecclesiae censent utrum Paritatem ordinum admittant an Imparitatem So that according to the opinion of this learned Divine all the Reformed Churches were free from the Imputation of Aërianism because they asserted not an Imparity among the Ministers of the Gospel to be unlawful but thought it was wholly in the Churches liberty to settle either a Parity or Imparity among them as they judged convenient But to descend more particularly to the Heroes of the Reformation we have a whole Constellation of them together in the Augustane Confession where they fully express their minds to this purpose Hâc de re in hoc conveniâ— saepe testati sumus nos summâ voluntate cupere conservare Politiam Ecclesiasticam gradus in Ecclesiâ factos etiam humaná authoritate Scimus enim bono utili consilio à Patribus Ecclesiasticam disciplinam hoc modo ut veteres Canones describunt constit utam esse And afterwards Saevitia Episcoporum in causâ est quare alicubi dissolvitur illa Canonica Politia quam magnopere cupiebamus conservare And again Hîc iterum volumus testatum nos libenter conservaturos esse Ecclesiasticam Canonicam Politiam si modo Episcopi desinant in Ecclesias nostras saevire Haec nostra voluntas coram Deo apud omnes gentes ad omnem posteritatem excusabit nos nè nobis imputari possit quod Episcoporum authoritas labefactetur And yet further Saepe jam testati sumus nos non solùm potestatem Ecclesiasticam quae in Evangelio instituta est summâ pietate venerari sed etiam Ecclesiasticam Politiam gradus in Ecclesiâ magnoperé probare quantùm in nobis est conservare cupere We see with what industry they purge and clear themselves from the imputation of bearing any ill will to the several degrees that were instituted by the Church nay they profess themselves desirous of retaining them so the Bishops would not force them to do any thing against their consciences To the same purpose they speak in the Smaraldian Articles None speaks more fully of the agreeableness of the Form of Government used in the Ages after the Apostles to the Word of God then that excellent servant of God as Bishop Downam often calls him Calvin doth For in his Iustitutions he speaks thus of the Polity of the Primitive Church Tametsi enim multos Canones ediderunt illorum temporum Episcopi quibus plus viderentur exprimere quà m sacris literis expressum esset ea tamen cautione totam suam Oeconomiam composuerunt ad unicam illam verbi Dei normam ut facilè videas nihil ferè hac parte hâ—buisse à verbo Dei alienum Although the Bishops of those times did make many Canons wherein they did seem to express more then was in the word of God yet they used such caution and prudence in the establishing the Churches Polity according to the word of God that hardly will any thing be found in it disagreeing to Gods Holy word And afterwards speaking of the Institution of Arch-bishops and Patriarchs he saith it was ad-Disciplinae conservationem for preserving the Churches Discipline and again Si rem omisso vocabulo intuemur reperiemus Veteres Episcopos non aliam regendae Ecclesiae formam voluisse fingere ab ea quam Deus verbo suo praescripsit If we consider the matter its self of the Churches Polity we shall find nothing in it discrepant from or repugnant to that Form which is laid down in the Word of God Calvin then what ever form of Government he judged most suitable to the state and temper of the Church wherein he was placed was far from condemning that Polity which was used in the Primitive Church by a difference as to degrees among the Ministers of the Gospel He did not then judge any form of Government to be so delivered in Scriptures as unalterably to oblige all Churches and ages to observe it Beza saith He was so far from thinking that the humane order of Episcopasy was brought into the Church through rashness or ambition that none can deny it to have been very usefull as long as Bishops were good And those that both will and can let them enjoy it still His words are these Absit autem ut hunc ordinem et si Apostolica mere divina dispositione non constitutum tamen ut temere aut superbe invectum reprehendam cujus potius magnum usum fuisse quamdiu boni sancti Episcopi Ecclesiis praefuerunt quis inficiari possit Fruantur igitur illo qui volent poterunt And elsewhere professeth all reverence esteem and honour to be due to all such modern Bishops who strive to imitate the example of the Primitive Bishops in a due reformation of the Church of God according to the rule of the word And looks on it as a most false and impudent Calumny of some that said as though they intended to prescribe their form of Government to all other Churches as though they were like some ignorant fellows who think nothing good but what they do themselves How this is reconcileable with the novell pretence of a Ius divinum I cannot understand For certainly if Beza had judged that only Form to be prescribed in the Word which was used in Geneva it had been but his duty to have desired all other Churches to conform to that Neither ought Beza then to be looked on as out-going his Master Calvin in the opinion about the right of Church-Government For we see he goes no further in it then Calvin did All that either of them maintained was that the form of Government in use among them was more agreeable to the primitive form then the modern Episcopacy was and that Episcopacy lay more open to Pride Laziness Ambition and Tyranny as they had seen and felt in the Church of Rome Therefore not to give occasion to snch incroachments upon the liberty of mens consciences as were introduced by the tyranny of the Roman Bishops they thought it the safest way to reduce the Primitive parity but yet so as to have an Ecclesiastical Senate for one Church containing City and Territories as is evident at Geneva and that Senate to have a President in it and whether that President should be for life or only by course they judged it an accidental and mutable thing but that there should be one essential and necessary This
of necessity is valid which I have already shewed doth evidently prove that Episcopal Government is not founded upon any unalterable Divine Right For which purpose many evidences are produced from Dr. Field of the Church lib. 3. c. 39 B. Downam l. 3. c. 4. B. Iewâ—l P. 2. p. 131. Saravia cap. 2. p. 10. 11. B. Alley Praelect 3. 6. B. Pilkinton B. Bridges B. Bilson D. Nowel B. Davenant B. Prideaux B. Andrews and others by our Reverend and learned M. Baxter in his Christian Concord to whom may be added the late most Reverend and eminent the Bishop of Durham Apolog. Cathol p. 1. l. 1. c. 21. and the Primat of Armagh whose judgement is well known as to the point of Ordination So much may suffice to shew that both those who hold an equality among Ministers to be the Apostolical Form and those that do hold Episcopacy to have been it do yet both of them agâ—ee at last in this that no one Form is setled by an unalterable Law of Christ nor consequently founded upon Divine Right For the former notwithstanding their opinion of the primitive Form do hold Episcopacy lawfull and the latter who hold Episcopacy to have been the primitive Form do not hold it perpetually and immutably necessary but that Presbyters where Bishops cannot be had may lawfully discharge the offices belonging to Bishops both which Concessions do necessarily destroy the perpetual Divine Right of that Form of Government they assert Which is the thing I have been so long in proving and I hope made it evident to any unprejudicated mind Having laid down this now as a sure foundation for peace and union it were a very easie matter to improve it in order to an Accommodation of our present differences about Church Government I shall only lay down three general Principles deducible from hence and leave the whole to the mature consideration of the Lovers of Truth and Peace The first Principle is That Prudence must be used in setling the Government of the Church This hath been the whole design of this Treatise to prove that the Form of Church-government is a meer matter of prudence regulated by the Word of God But I need not insist on the Arguments already brought to prove it for as far as I can find although the several parties in their contentions with one another plead for Divine Right yet when any one of them comes to settle their own particular Form they are fain to call in the help of Prudence even in things supposed by the several parties as necessary to the establishment of their own Form The Congregational men may despair of ever finding Elective Synods an explicite Church-Covenant or positive signs of Grace in admission of Church-members in any Law of Christ nay they will not generally plead for any more for them then general rules of Scripture fine Similitudes and Analogies and evidence of natural Reason and what are all these at last to an express Law of Christ without which it was pretended nothing was to be done in the Church of God The Presbyterians seem more generally to own the use of General Rules and the Light of Nature in order to the Form of Church Government as in the subordination of Courts Classical Assemblies and the more moderate sort as to Lay elders The Episcopal men will hardly find any evidence in Scripture or the practice of the Apostles for Churches consisting of many fixed Congregations for worship under the charge of one Person nor in the Primitive Church for the ordination of a Bishop without the preceding election of the Clergy and at least consent and approbation of the people and neither in Scripture nor antiquity the least footstep of a delegation of Church-power So that upon the matter at last all of them make use of those things in Church Government which have no other foundation but the Principles of Humane prudence guided by the Scriptures and it were well if that were observed still The second Principle is That Form of Government is the best according to principles of Christian Prudence which comes the nearest to Apostolical practice and tends most to the advancing the peace and unity of the Church of God What that Form is I presume not to define and determine but leave it to be gather'd from the evidence of Scripture and Antiquity as to the Primitive practice and from the nature state and condition of that Church wherein it is to be setled as to its tendency to the advancement of peace and unity in it In order to the finding out of which that proposal of his late most excellent Majesty of glorious memory is most highly just and reasonable His Majesty thinketh it well worthy the studies and endeavours of Divines of both opinions laying aside emulation and private interests to reduce Episcopacy and Presbyteriâ— into such a well-proportion'd Form of superiority and subordination as may best resemble the Apostolical and Primitive times so far forth as the different condition of the times and the exigences of all considerable circumstances will admit If this Proposal be embraced as there is no reason why it should not then all such things must be retrieved which were unquestionably of the Primitive practice but have been grown out of use through the length and corruption of times Such are the restoring of the Presbyteries of several Churches as the Senate to the Bishop with whole counsel and advice all things were done in the Primitive Church The contracting of Dioceses into such a compass as may be fitted for the personal inspection of the Bishop and care of himself and the Senate the placing of Bishops in all great Towns of resort especially County Towns that according to the ancient course of the Church its Government may be proportioned to the Civil Government The constant preaching of the Bishop in some Churches of his charge and residence in his Diocese The solemnity of Ordinations with the consent of the people The observing Provincial Synods twice every year The employing of none in judging Church matters but the Clergy These are things unquestionably of the Primitive practice and no argument can be drawn from the present state of things why they are not as much if not more necessary then ever And therefore all who appeal to the practice of the Primitive Church must condemn themselves if they justifie the neglect of them But I only touch at these things my design being only to lay a foundation for a happy union Lastly What Form of Government is determined by lawfull authority in the Church of God ought so far to be submitted to as it contains nothing repugnant to the Word of God So that let mens judgements be what they will concerning the Primitive Form seeing it hath been proved that that Form doth not bind unalterably and necessarily it remains that the determining of the Form of Government is a matter of liberty in the Church and what is so
only on confederation such things being lyable to a Magistrates power there can be no plea from mutual consent to justifie any opposition to supream authority in a Common wealth But then how such persons can bee Christians when the Magistrates would have them to bee otherwise I cannot understand nor how the primitive Martyrs were any other then a company of Fools or mad-men who would hazard their lives for that which was a meer arbitrary thing and which they had no necessary obligation upon them to profess Mistake me not I speak not here of meer acts of discipline but of the duty of outward professing Christianity if this be a duty then a Christian society is setled by a positive Law if it be not a duty then they are fools who suffer for it So that this question resolved into its principles leads us higher than we think for and the main thing in debate must bee Whether there be an obligation upon conscience for men to associaâ—e in the profession of Christianity or no If there be then the Church which is nothing else but such an association is established upon a positive Law of Christ if there be not then those inconveniences follow which are already mentioned Wee are told indeed by the Leviathan with confidence enough that no precepts of the Gospel are Law till enacted by civil authority but it is little wonder that hee who thinks an immaterial substance implyes a contradiction should think as much of calling any thing a Law but what hath a civil sanction But I suppose all those who dare freely own a supream and infinite essence to have been the Creator and to be the Ruler of the World will acknowledge his Power to oblige conscience without being beholding to his own creature to enact his Laws that men might bee bound to obey them Was the great God sain to bee be holding to the civil authority hee had over the Iewish Common wealth their government being a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to make his Laws obligatory to the consciences of the Iews What had not they their beings from God and can there be any greater ground of obligation to obedience than from thence Whence comes civil power to have any Right to oblige men more than God considered as Governour of the World can have Can there be indeed no other Laws according to the Leviathans Hypothesis but only the Law of nature and civil Laws But I pray whence comes the obligation to either of these that these are not as arbitrary as all other agreements are And is it not as strong a dictate of nature as any can bee supposing that there is a God that a creature which receives its being from another should be bound to obey him not only in the resultancies of his own nature but with the arbitrary constitutions of his will Was Adam bound to obey God or no as to that positive precept of eating the forbidden fruit if no civil Sanction had been added to that Law The truth is such Hypotheses as these are when they are followed close home will be sound to Kennel in that black Den from whence they are loath to be thought to have proceeded And now supposing that every full Declaration of the will of Christ as to any positive Institution hath the force and power of a Law upon the consciences of all to whom it is sufficiently proposed I proceed to make appear that such a divine positive Laew there is for the existence of a Church as a visible body and society in the World by which I am far from meaning such a conspicuous society that must continue in a perpetual visibility in the same place I find not the least intimation of any such thing in Scripture but that there shall alwayes bee somewhere or other in the world a society owning and professing Christianity may bee easily deduced from thence and especially on this account that our Saviour hath required this as one of the conditions in order to eternal felicity that all those who believe in their hearts that Iesus is the Christ must likewise confess him with their mouths to the world and therefore as long at there are men to believe in Christ there must be men that will not be ashamed to associate on the account of the Doctrine he hath promulged to the world That one Phrase in the New Testament so frequently used by our blessed Saviour of the Kingdome of Heaven importing a Gospel-state doth evidently declare a society which was constituted by him on the principles of the Gospel Covenant Wherefore should our Saviour call Disciples and make Apostles and send them abroad with full commission to gather and initiate Disciples by Baptism did he not intend a visible society for his Church Had it not been enough for men to have cordially believed the truth of the Gospel but they must bee entred in a solemn visible way and joyn in participation of visible Symbols of bread and wine but that our Saviour required external profession and society in the Gospel as a necessary duty in order to obtaining the priviledges conveyed by his Magna Charta in the Gospel I would fain know by what argument wee can prove that any humane Legislator did ever intend a Common wealth to be governed according to his mode by which we cannot prove that Christ by a positive Law did command such a society as should be governed in a visible manner as other societies are Did he not appoint officers himself in the Church and that of many ranks and degrees Did he not invest those Officers with authority to rule his Church Is it not laid as a charge on them to take heed to that flock over which God had made them Over-seers Are there not Rules laid down for the peculiar exercise of their Government over the Church in all the parts of it Were not these Officers admitted into theâ—â— function by a most solemn visible Rite of Imposition of Hands And are all these solemn transactions a meer piece of sacred Pageantry And they will appear to bee little more if the Society of the Church bee a meer arbitrary thing depending only upon consent and confederation and not subsisting by vertue of any Charter from Christ or some positive Law requiring all Christians to joyn in Church society together But if now from hence it appears as certainly it cannot but appear that this Society of the Church doth subsist by vertue of a Divine positive Law then it must of necessity be distinct from a civil Society and that on these accounts First because there is an antecedent obligation on conscience to associate on the account of Christianity whether Humane Laws prohibit or command it From whence of necessity it follows that the constitution of the Church is really different from that of the Commonwealth because whether the Common wealth be for or against this Society all that own it are bound to profess it openly and declare
Holy Ghost hath made them Over-seers 3. I argue that Church-Power ariseth not meerly from consent because the Church may exercise her Power on such who have not actually confederated with her which is in admitting members into the Church For if the Church-Officers have power to judge whether persons are fit to be admitted they have power to exclude from admission such whom they judge unfit and so their power is exercised on those who are not confederated To this it may be answered That the consent to be judged gives the Church power over the person suing for admission I grant it doth as to that particular person but the Right in generall of judging concerning Admission doth argue an antecedent power to an actual confederation For I will suppose that Christ should now appoint some Officers to found a Church and gather a Society of Christians together where there hath been none before I now ask Whether these Officers have power to admit any into the Church or no This I suppose cannot be denied for to what end else were they appointed If it be granted they have power to admit persons and thereby make a Church then they had power antecedently to any confederation for the Confederation was subsequent to their Admission and therefore they who had power to admit could not derive their power from confederation This Argument to me puts the case out of dispute that all Church-power cannot arise from meer confederation And that which further evidenceth that the Power of the Church doth not arise from meer consent is that Deed of Gift whereby our Blessed Saviour did confer the Power of the Keyes on the Apostle Peter as the representative in that action of the whole Colledge of the Apostles and Governours of the Church of which power all the Apostles were actually infeoffed John 20. 23. By which Power of the Keyes is certainly meant some Administration in the Church which doth respect it as a visible Society in which Sense the Church is so frequently called as in that place the Kingdome of Heaven and in all probability the Administration intended here by the Power of the Keyes is that we are now discoursing of viz. the Power of Admission into the Church of Christ in order to the pardon of the sins of all penitent Believers and the shutting out of such who were manifestly unworthy of so holy a communion So that the power of the Keyes doâ—h not primarily respect exclusion out of the Church and receiving into it again upon Absolution but it chiefly respects the power of Admission into the Church though by way of connotation and Analogy of Reason it will carry the other along with it For if the Apostles as Governours of the Church were invested with a power of judging of mens fitness for Admission into the Church as members of it it stands to the highest Reason that they should have thereby likewise a power conveyed to them of excluding such as are unworthy after their Admission to maintain communion with the Church So that this interprâ—tation of the Power of the Keyes is far from invalidating the Power of the Church as to its censuring Offenders all that it pretends to is onely giving a more natural and genuine Sense of the Power of the Keyes which will appear so to be if we consider these things 1. That this Power was given to Saint Peter before any Christian Church was actually formed which as I have elsewhere made manifest was not done till after Christs Resurrection when Christ had given the Aposâ—les their commission to go to Preach and baptize c. Matth. 28. 19. Is it not therefore farr more rational that the Power of the Keyes here given should respect the founding of a Church and admission into it than ejection out of it before it was in being and receiving into it again And this we find likewise remarkably fulfilled in the Person of the Apostle Peter who opened the door of admission into the Christian Church both to Iewes and Gentiles To the Iewes by his Sermon at Pentecost when about 3000. Souls were brought into the Church of Christ. To the Gentiles as is most evident in the story of Corneliuâ— Acts 10. 28. who was the first-fruits of the Gentiles So that if we should yield so far to the great Inhancers of Saint Petesâ— Power that something was intended peculiar to his person in the Keyes given him by our Saviour we hereby see how rationally it may be understood without the least advantage to the extravagant pretensions of Saint Peters pretended Successours 2. The pardon of sin in Scripture is most annexed to Baptism and Admission into the Church and thence it seems evident that the loosing of sin should be by admitting into the Church by Baptism in the same Sense by which Baptism is said to save us and it is called the washing of Regeneration respecting the Spiritual advantages which come by Admission into the Church of Christ and so they are said to have their sins bound upon them who continue refractory in their sins aâ— Simon Magus is said to be in the bond of iniquity 3. The Metaphor of the Keyes refers most to Admission into the House and excluding out of it rather than ejecting any out of it and re-admitting them Thus when Eliakim is said to have the Keyes of the House of David it was in regard of his Power to open and shut upon whom he pleased And thus Cyprian as our learned Mr. Thorndike observes understands the power of binding and loosing in this sense in his Epistle to Iubaianus where speaking of the Remission of sins in Baptism he brings these very words of our Saviour to Peter as the evidence of it That what he should loose on Earth should be loosed in Heaven and concludes with this Sentence Unde intelligimus non nisi in Ecclesiâ praeposit is in Evangeliâ—â lege ac Dominicâ ordinatione fundatis licere baptizare remissam peccatorum dare for is autem nec ligari aliquid posse nec solvi ubi non sit qui ligare possit aut solvere That which I now infer from this Discourse is that the power of the Church doâ—h not arise from meer consent and confederation both because this power doth respect those who have not actually consented to it and because it is settled upon the Governours of the Church by Divine Institution Thus it appears that the right of inflicting censures doth not result meerly â—â—â— confoederatd Disciplind which was the thing to be proved The lâ—ke evidence may be given for the duty of submitting to penalties or Church-censures in the members of the Church which that it ariseth not from meer consent of parties will appear on these accounts 1. Every person who enters this Society is bound to consent before he doth it because of the Obligation lying upon Conscience to an open profâ—ssion of Christianity presently upon conviction of the
Ordinances which suppose admission into the Church by Baptism do thereby suppose an all-sufficient Sacrifice offered for the expiation of sin and consequently â—he subsequent priviledges do not immediately Relate to the obtaining of that but a gratefull commemoration of the Deatâ— of Christ and a celebration of the infinite mercy and goodness of God in the way of Redemption found out by the death of his Son And therefore it stands to great reason that such Persons who by their profane and unworthy lives dishonour so Holy a profession should not be owned to be as good and sound Members of the Society â—ounded on so Sacred a Foundation as the most Christian and Religious Persons To this I know nothing can be objected but that first The Passover was commemorative among the Iews and Secondly That the priviledges of that people were then very great above other people and therefore if God had intended any such thing as Excommunication among his peoplè it would have been in use then To these I answer 1. I grant the Passeover was commemorative as to the occasion of its Institution but then it was withal Typical and annunciative of that Lamb of God who was to take away the sins of the world and therefore no person who desired expiation of sins was to bee debarred from it but the Lords-supper under the Gospel hath nothing in it propitiatory but is intended as a Feast upon a Sacrifice and a Federal Rite as hath been fully cleared by a very learned person in his discourse about the true notion of the Lords Supper 2. I grant the Iews had very many priviledges above other Nations Nay so far that the whole body of the people were looked upon as Gods chosen and peculiar and holy people and from thence I justly inferr that whatever exclusion was among the people of the Iews from their society will far better hold as an argument for Excommunication under the Christian Church than if it had been a meer debarring from their Levitical Worship And that I should far sooner insist upon from the reason assigned as the ground of Excommunication then the other infirm and proâ—ligated Argument and so the Exclusion out of the Camp of Israel and the Cerith among the Iews whatever we understand by it may à pari hold to be a ground of exclusion from the Christian Society In imitation of which I rather suppose that exclusion out of the Synagogues was after taken up rather then as a meer Out lawry when they were deprived of Civil Power The Question then being thus clearly stated it amounts to this Whether under the Gospel there be any power in the Officers of the Church by vertue of Divine Institution to exclude any Offenders out of the Christian Society for transgressing the Laws of it And according to our former Propositions I suppose it will be sufficient to prove that power to bee of Divine Institution if I prove it to bee fundamentally and intrinsecally resident in the Society its self For whatever doth immediately result from the Society its self must have the same Original which the subject hath because this hath the nature of an inseparable property resulting from its constitution For the clearing of which I shall lay down my thoughts of it as clearly and methodically as I can and that in these following Hypotheses 1. Where there is a power of declaring any person to bee no true member of the Society hee is in there is a formal power of Excommunication For this is all which I intend by it viz. an authoritative pronouncing virtute officii any convict Offender to have forfeited his interest in the Church as a Christian society and to lose all the priviledges of it So that if this power be lodged in any Church Officer then he hath power formally to Excommunicate 2. Where the enjoyment of the priviledges of a society is not absolute and necessary but depends upon conditions to bee performed by every member of which the Society is Iudge there is a power in the Rulers of that Society to debar any person from such priviledges upon non-performance of the conditions As supposing the jus Civitatis to depend upon defending the Rights of the City upon a failing in reference to this in any person admitted to Citizen-ship the Rulers of the City have the same power to take that Right away which they had at first to give iâ— because that Right was never absolutely given but upon supposition that the person did not overthrow the ends for which it was bestowed upon him 3. The Church is such a Society in which Communion is not absolute and necessary but it doth depend upon the performance of some Conditions of which the Governours of it are the competent Iudges And that appears 1. Because the admission into the Church depends upon conditions to be judged by Pastors as in case of adult persons requiring Baptism and the children of Infidels being Baptized in both which cases it is evident that conditions are pre-requisite of which the Pastors are Iudges 2. Because the priviledges of this Society do require a separation from other Societies in the world and call for greater Holiness and purity of life and those very priviledges are pledges of greater benefits which belong only to persons qualified with suitable conditions it would therefore bee a very great dishonour to this Society if it lay as common and open as other Societies in the World do and no more qualifications required from the members of it 3. Wee have instances in the sacred Records of Apostolical times of such scandals which have been the ground of the exclusion of the persons guilty of them from the priviledges of the Christian society And here I suppose we may notwithstanding all the little evasions which have been found out â—ix on the incestuous person in the Church of Corinth As to which I lay not the force of the argument upon the manner of execution of the censure then viz. by delegation from an Apostle or the Apostolical Rod or delivering to Satan for I freely grant that these did then import an extraordinary power in the Apostles over offenders But I say the ground and reason of the exercise of that power in such an extraordinary manner at that time doth still continue although not in that visible extraordinary effect which it then had And whatever practice is founded upon grounds perpetual and common that practice must continue as long as the grounds of it do and the Churches capacity w 〈…〉 dmit which hypothesis is the only rational foundation on which Episcopal Government in the Church doth stand firm and unshaken and which in the former Discourse I am far from undermining of as an intelligent Reader may perceive now I say that it is evident that the reasons of the Apostles censure of that person are not fetched from the want of Christian Magistrates but from such things which will hold as long as any Christian Church
which are the dishonour of the Society 1 Corinth 4. 1. the spreading of such corruptions further if they pass uncensured 1 Corinth 5. 6. and amendment of the person 1 Cor. 5. 5. Upon these pillars the power of censures rests it self in the Church of God which are the main grounds of penalties in all Societies whatsoever viz. the preservation of the honour of them and preventing of further mischief and doing good to the offending party And that which seems to add a great deal oâ— weight to this instance is that the Apostle checks the Corinthians that before the exercise of the Apostolical Rod they were not of themselves sensible of so great a dishonour to the Church as that was and had not used some means for the removing such a person from their Society And ye are puffed up and have not rather mourned that hee that hath done this deed may be taken away from among you 1 Corinth 5. 2. Therein implying that whether there had been such a thing in the Church or no as the Apostolical Rod it had been the duty of a Christian Society to have done their endeavour in order to the removing such a person from their number But further I cannot understand how it should bee a duty in Christians to withdraw from every brother who walketh disorderly and Church-Officers not to have power to pronounce such a person to be withdrawn from which amounts to excommunication It is not to mee at all material whether they did immediately relate to Civil or Sacred converse concerning which there is so much dispute for in which soever we place it if Church-officers have a power to pronounce such a person to be withdrawn from they have a power of excommunication so we consider this penalty as inflicted on the person in his relation to the Society as a Christian and wiâ—hall how neerly conjoyned their civil and spiritual eating were together 1 Corinth 11. 20 21. and how strongly the argument will hold from Civil to Sacred viz. à remotione unius ad remotionem alterius not from any fancied pollution in Sacris from the company of wicked men but from the dishonour reflecting on the Society from such unworthy persons parâ—aking of the hâ—ghest priviledges of it Thus from these three Hypotheses this Corollary follows that where any persons in a Church do by their open and contumacious offences declare to the world that they are far from being the persons they were supposed to be in their admission into the Church there is a power resident in the Pastors of the Church to debar such persons from the priviledges of it and consequently from Communion in the Lords Supper 1. Because this expresseth the nearest union and closest confederation as the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 among the Grecians Commonwealths did 2. Because this hath been alwayes looked on with greatest veneration in the Church of God and therefore it is least of all fit those persons should be admitted to the highest priviledges of the Church which are unworthy of the lowest of them There remain only some few Objections which are levelled against this opinion concerning the power of excommunication which from the Question being thus stated and proved will be soon removed The first is that this excommunication is an outward punishment and therefore belongs not to Church officers but to the Magistrate 2. Because it neither is nor ever was in the power of any Church officer to debar any offending member from publick worship because any Heathens may come to it 3. It cannot lye as to exclusion from the Lords Supper because Christ is offered as spiritual food as well in the Word Preached as in the Sacrament To these I answer 1. I do not well understand what the Objectors mean by an outward punishment for there can be no punishment belonging to a visible Society such as the Church is here considered to be but it must be visible i. e. outward or a thing to be taken notice of in the World and in this sense I deny that all visible punishment belongs only to the Magistrate but if by outward be meanâ— forcible punishment then I grant that all coactive power belongs to the Magistrate but I deny that excommunication formally considered is a forcible punishment 1. Because every person at his entrance into this Society is supposed to declare his submission to the rules of the Society and therefore whatever he after undergoes by way of penalty in this Society doth depend upon that consent 2. A person stands excommunicate legally and de jure who is declared authoritatively to be no member of the Society though he may be present at the acts of it as a defranchised person may be at those of a Corporation 3. A person falling into those offences which merit excommunication is supposed in so doing voluntarily to renounce his interest in those priviledges the enjoyment of which doth depend upon abstaining from those offences which he wilfully falls into especially if contumacy be joyned with them a 〈…〉 is before excommunication for then nothing is done forcibly towards him for he first relinquisheth his right before the Church-Governor declares him excluded the Society So that the offender doth meritoriously excommunicate himself the Pastor doth it formally by declaring that he hath made himself no member by his offences and contumacy joyned with them To the second I answer That I do not place the formality of excommunication in exclusion from hearing the Word but in debarring the person from hearing tanquam pars Ecclesiae as a member of the Church and so his hearing may be well joyned with that of Heathens and Infidels and not of members of the Church To the third I answer That exclusion from the Lords Supper is not on the accounts mentioned in the Objection but because it is one of the chiefest priviledges of the Church as it is a visible Society Having thus cleared and asserted the power of Excommunication in a Christian church there remains only one enquiry more which is Whether this power doth remain formally in the Church after its being incorporated into the Common wealth or else doth it then escheate wholly into the Civil Power The resolution of which question mainly depends on another spoken to already viz. Whether this power was only a kind of Widows estate which belonged to it only during its separation from the Civil Power or was the Church absolutely infeoffed of it as its perpetual Right belonging to it in all conditions whatsoever it should be in Now that must appear by the Tenure of it and the grounds on which it was conveyed which having been proved already to be perpetual and universal it from thence appears that no accession to the Church can invalidate its former title But then as in case of marriage the right of disposal and well management of the estate coming by the wife belongs to the husband so after the Church is married into the Common-wealth the
where by reading find In matters which concern the actions of God the most dutiful way on our part is to search what God hath done and with meekness to admire that rather then to dispute what he in congruâ—ty of reason ought to do Thus he with more to the same purpose The sum then of the answer to this Argument is this That nothing can be inferred of what Christ must do from his relation to his Church but what is absolutely necessary to the being of it as for all other things they being arbitrary constitutions we can judge no more of the necessity of them then as we find them clearly revealed in the Word of God And therefore the Plea must be removed from what Christ must do to what he hath done in order to the determining the particular form of Government in his Church But still it is argued for the necessity of a particular form of Government in the Church from the similitudes the Church is set out by in Scripture It is called a Vine and therefore must have Keepers an House and therefore must have Government a City and therefore must have a Polity a Body and therefore must have Parts I answer First All these Similitudes prove only that which none deny that there must be Order Power and Government in the Church of God we take not away the Keepers from the Vine nor the Government from the House nor Polity from the City nor distinction of parts from the Body we assert all these things as necessary in the Church of God The keepers of the Vine to defend and prune it the Governours of the House to rule and order it the Polity of the City to guide and direct it the parts of the Body to compleat and adorn it But Secondly None of these Similitudes prove what they are brought for viz. that any one immutable form of Government is determined For may not the Keepers of the Vine use their own discretion in looking to it so the flourishing of the Vine be that they aym at and if there be many of them may there not be different orders among them and some as Supervisors of the others work The House must have Governours but those that are so are entrusted with the power of ordering things in the House according to their own discretion and where there is a multitude is there not diversity of Offices among them and is it necessary that every House must have Offices of the same kind In great and large Families there must be more particular distinct Orders and Offices than in a small and little one The City must have its Polity but all Cities have not the like some have one form and some another and yet there is a City still and a Polity too A body must have all its parts but are all the parts of the body equal one to another it sufficeth that there be a proportion though not equality in them the several parts of the body have their several offices and yet we see the head is superintendent over them all and thus if we make every particular Church a Body yet it follows not that the form of cloathing that Body must alwayes be the same for the manner of Government is rather the cloathing to the Body than the parts of it the Governours indeed are parts of the Body but their manner of governing is not that may alter according to the proportion and growth of the Body and its fashion change for better conveniency But if these Similitudes prove nothing yet certainly say they the difference as to Civil and Ecclesiastical Government will for though there may be different forms in civil Government which are therefore call'd an Ordinance of man yet there must be but one in Church-Government which is an Ordinance of God and Christ hath appointed Officers to rule it I answer first We grant and acknowledge a difference between the Church and the Common-wealth they are constituted for other ends the one Political the other Spiritual one temporal the other eternal they subsist by different Charters the one given to men as men the other to men as Christians They act upon different principles the one to preserve civil Rights the other to promote an eternal Interest nay their formal constitution is different for a man by being a member of a Common-wealth doth not become a Member of the Church and by being excommunicated out of the Church doth not cease to be a Member of the Common-wealth The Officers of the one are clearly distinct from the other the one deriving their power from the Law of Christ the other from Gods general Providence the Magistrate hath no power to Excommunicate formally out of the Church any more then to admit into it nor have the Church-officers any power to cast men out of the common-wealth We see then there is a difference between Civil and Ecclesiastical Government But then I answer Secondly The power of the Magistrate is not therefore called an Ordinance of man because of the mutability of its Form and as distinguished from the Form of Church-government For First The Apostle speaks not of the Form of Government but of the Power Submit to every Ordinance of man c. the ground of Submission is not the form but the power of civil government and therefore there can be no opposition expressed here between the Forms of Civil and Ecclesiastical government but if any such opposition be it must be between the powers and if this be said as to civils that the power is an Ordinance of Man in that sense whereas Paul saith it is of God yet as to the Church it is freely acknowledged that the Power is derived from God Secondly The civil power is not called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 because it is a creature of mans making and so subject to mens power but the ground of that Speech is because all civil power respects men as men without any further connotation Humana dicitur non quod ab hominibus sit excogitata sed quod hominum sit propria saith Beza And to the same purpose Calvin Humana dicitur Ordinatio non quod humanitùs inventa fuerit sed quod propria hominum est digesta ordinata vivendi ratio Piscator Humanam appellat non quod magistratus homines authores habeat sed quod Homines eam gerant So then the civil power is not called an Ordinance of man as it is of mans setting up but as it is proper to man and so if there be any opposition between the civil and Church power it is onely this that the one belongs to men as men the other to men as Christians Thirdly Although it be granted that Christ hath appointed and set up his own Officers in his Church yet it doth not thence follow that he hath determined in what manner they shall Rule his Church It is true Christ hath set up in his Church some Apostles some
understanding of the truth and certainty of Christian Religion For when once the mind of any rational man is so far wrought upon by the influence of the Divine Spirit as to discover the most rational and undoubted evidences which there are of the truth of Christianity he is presently obliged to profess Christ openly to worship him solemnly to assemble with others for instruction and participation of Gospel Ordinances and thence it follows that there is an antecedent Obligation upon Conscience to associate with others and consequently to consent to be governed by the Rulers of the Society which he enters into So that this submission to the power of Church Officers in the exercise of Discipline upon Offenders is implyed in the very conditions of Christianity and the solemn professing and undertaking of it 2. It were impossible any Society should be upheld if it be not laid by the founder of the Society as the necessary Duty of all members to undergo the penalties which shall be inflicted by those who have the care of governing that Society so they be not contrary to the Laws Nature and Constitution of it Else there would be no provision made for preventing divisions and confusions which will happen upon any breach made upon the Laws of the Society Now this Obligation to submission to censures doth speak something antecedentaly to the confederation although the expression of it lies in the confederation its self By this I hope we have made it evident that it is nothing else but a mistake in those otherwise Learned persons who make the power of censures in the Christian Church to be nothing else but a Lex confederata Disciplinae whereas this power hath been made appear to be deâ—ived from a higher Original than the meer Arbitrary consent of the several members of the Church associating together And how farre the examples of the Synagogues under the Law are from reaching that of Christian Churches in reference to this because in these the power is conveyed by the Founder of the Society and not left to any arbitrary constitutions as it was among the Iews in their Synagogues It cannot be denied but consent is supposed and confederation necessary in order to Church power but that is rather in regard of the exercise then the original of it For although I affirm the original of thiâ— power to be of Divine Institution yet in order to the exercise of it in reference to particular persons who are not mentioned in the Charter of the power its self it is necessary that the persons on whom it is exerted should declare their consent and submission either by words or actions to the Rules and Orders of this Society Having now proved that the Power of the Church doth not arise from meer consent of parties the next grand Inquiry is concerning the extent of this power Whether it doth reach so far as to Excommunication For some men who will not seem wholly to deny all power in the Church over Offenders nor that the Church doth subsist by Divine Institution yet do wholly deny any such power as that of Excommunication and seem rather to say that Church-Officers may far more congrâ—ously to their Office inflict any other mulct upon Offenders then exclude them from participation of Communion with others in the Ordinances and Sacraments of the Gospel In order therefore to the clearing of this I come to the third Proposition That the power which Christ hath given to the Officers of his Church doth extend to the exclusion of contumacious Offenders from the priviledges which this Society enjoyes In these terms I rather choose to fix it then in those crude expressions wherein Erastus and some of his followers would state the question and some of their imprudent adversaries have accepted it viz. Whether Church Officers have power to exclude any from the Eucharist ob moralem impuritatem And the reasons why I wave those terms are 1. I must confess my self yet unsatisfied as to any convincing Argument whereby it can be proved that any were denyed admission to the Lords Supper who were admitted to all other parts of Church-Society and owned as members in them I cannot yet see any particular Reason drawn from the Nature of the Lords-Supper above all other parts of Divine worship which should confine the censures of the Church meerly to that Ordinance and so to make the Eucharist bear the same Office in the Body of the Church which our new Anatomists tell us the parenchyme of the Liver doth in the natural Body viz. to be colâ—â—â— sanguinis to serve as a kind of strainer to separate the more gross and faeculent parts of the Blood from the more pure and spirituous so the Lord's Supper to strain out the more impure members of the Church from the more Holy and Spiritual My judgement then is that Excommunication relates immediately to the cutting a person off from Communion with the Churches visible Society constituted upon the ends it is but because Communion iâ— not visibly discerned but in Administration and Participation of Gospel Ordinances therefore Exclusion doth chiefly referre to these and because the Lords Supper is one of the highest privilledges which the Church enjoyes therefore it stands to reason that censures should begin there And in that sense suspension from the Lords Supper of persons apparently unworthy may be embraced as a prudent lawful and convenient abatement of the greater penalty of Excommunication and so to stand on the same general grounds that the other doth for Qui pâ—test majus potest etiam minus which will hold as well in moral as natural power iâ— there be no prohibition to the contrary nor peculiar Reason as to the one more then to the oâ—her 2. I dislike the terms ob moralem impuritatem on this account Because I suppose they were taken up by Erastus and from him by others as the Controversie was managed concerning Excommunication among the Iâ—wes viz. whether it were â—meerly because of Ceremonial or else likewise because of moral impurity As to which I must ingenuously acknowledge Erastus hath very much the advantage of his adversaries clearly proving that no persons under the Law were excluded the Temple Worship because of moral impurity But then withall I think he hath gained little advantage to his cause by the great and successfull pains he hath taken in the proving of that My reason is because the Temple-Worship or the sacrifices under the Law were in some sense propitiatory as they were the adumbrations of that grand Sacrifice which was to be offered up for the appeasing of Gods wrath viz. The Blood of Christ therefore to have excluded any from participation of them had been to exclude them from the visible way of obtaining pardon of sin which was not to be had without shedding of Blood as the Apostle tells us and from testifying their Faith towards God and Repentance from dead works But now under the Gospel those