A Discourse OF THE RIGHT OF THE CHURCH IN A Christian State BY HERBERT THORNDIKE LONDON Printed by M. F. for OCTAVIAN PULLEN at the sign of the Rose in S. Pauls Church-yard 1649. To the READER AT the beginning of these troubles I published a short Discourse of the Primitive government of Churches and after it a larger of the Apostolicall form of Divine Service at the Assemblies of the Church Thinking it easie to inferre what ought to be done if it could be made to appear what the Apostles had done Since that time Congregations have been erected and Presbyteries Ordained though with some tincture of Erastus his Doctrine which dissolveth all Ecclesiasticall Power into the Secular in States that are Christian Here I thought it worth the while to try how the reasons heretofore advanced might be improved not onely to establish the Society of the Church upon the Power of the Keys granted by our Lord or to declare what persons and upon what terms it is trusted with on behalf of the Church and every part of it which I had begun to doe afore but in what Right and Interest the Secular Power concurres to the effect of it in establishing or reforming the Church of any Christian State This is the reason that I referre so often to those two Discourses intending at the first but to supply and improve what I had said But finding by the processe that I could not compasse the brevity which I first aimed at I have added a Review whereby as some parts are inlarged so the whole perhaps remains not so sutable because other points that might seem to require the like enlargement are left as they were because an end must be made My reasons are generall to all States and all parts of the Church and that generality will make them obscure to such as consider them not as the consequence of the subject deserves But it is well if a subject containing so great difference of particulars can be comprised in any generall truth Many things might have been better said could all have been Copied again But a single heart will make the best of all that which is tendred with no other design but to remonstrate how hard it is and yet to shew how it is possible to keep or recover the Conscience of a good Christian in such a triall as this I had a desire to have added herewith to the other two Discourses a Review of some passages which those things which I have said here give me occasion to inlarge But the delaies of the Presse and my absence inforce me to deferre it till opportunity serve The Contents of the severall Chapters CHAP. I. THe Church hath no temporall power but stands by Gods privilege of holding Assemblies The ground of the Secular powers interesse in Church matters The power of the Keys what it is and that it cannot be taken from the Church Pag. I CHAP. II. That the whole Bodies of Christians contained in severall Cities and the Territories of them make severall Churches depending upon the Churches of greater Cities Therefore the People is not endowed with the Chief Power in any Church 44 CHAP. III. That the Chief power of every Church resteth in the Bishop and Presbyters attended by the Deacons That onely the power of the Keys is convertible with the Office of Consecrating the Eucharist And therefore that there are no Lay Elders The Right of the Bishop Presbyters and People in Church matters 85 CHAP. IV. Secular persons as such have no Ecclesiasticall Power but may have Soveraign Power in Ecclesiasticall matters The Right of giving Laws to the Church and the Right of Tithes Oblations and all Consecrations how Originall how Accessory to the Church The Interesse of Secular Powers in all parts of the Power of the Church 163 CHAP. V. How the Church may be Reformed without violating Divine Right What Privileges and Penalties a Christian State may inforce Christianity with The Consent of the Church is the onely mark to discern what is the subject of Reformation and what not All Warre made upon the Title of Christianity is unjust and destructive to it Therefore Religion cannot be Reformed by force Of the present State of Christianity among us and the means that is left us to recover the Vnity of the Church 247 THE Right of the CHURCH IN A CHRISTIAN STATE CHAP. I. The Church hath no temporall power but stands by Gods priviledge of holding Assemblies The ground of the Secular powers interesse in Church matters The power of the Keys what it is and that it cannot be taken from the Church IT is visible to all understandings that there are two states of Gods Church For there must needs be a great difference between the Church as it was first established by the ordinances of the Apostles before the exercise of Christianity was allowed and priviledged by the Laws of the Romane Empire and as it now standeth protected by the Laws of Christian Kingdomes and Commonwealths And my purpose is here to debate what power the Church ought to have in this later state and what Right accrues to Secular powers in Church matters when they professe Christianity and the maintenance of it Which one dispute will necessarily conclude the chiefe matters now in compromise concerning the state of the Church in this Kingdome To understand this aright we must suppose that the Church is not endowed with any manner of the secular power of this world and the civill Societies of it which constraineth men to obedience by force For it will be easie for ordinary understandings after the miserable disputes which this civill Warre hath advanced to perceive that though there be many points of that Right wherein Soveraign Power consisteth yet all of them are resolved into the Power of the Sword Seeing that there is no manner of publick Act either of Soveraign Power or any derived from it that could be effectuall as the use of civill Society requires did not all mens senses tell them that there is force ready to reduce the refractary to obedience Now that our Saviour did and was to disclaim all Title to the Sword is manifest by the Gospell and the profession of it For being suspected in his life time by his enemies and lastly accused to Pilate as one that sought to usurp it his renouncing it so publickly because it clears him therefore convinces the injustice of the sentence against him And truly what entertainment shall we imagine his Gospel would have found in the world had it pretended to establish itself by force For this profession must needs have produced that effect which Mahumetisme did afterwards to wit the subversion of all States which it might prove able to justle with and to prevaile But Christianity being first initiated by the Crosse of Christ and professing nothing but to follow him in bearing his Crosse it is manifest that those which saw not reason to beleeve it must be convinced that they ought not
it is probable that for resolution in a doubt which such persons as Paul and Barnabas could not determine as to the Body of the Church it can be thought that they resorted to Jerusalem as to the Brethren or as to the Apostles whether it can be imagined that the People of the Church at Jerusalem could prescribe in any way either of Power or of Authority or Illumination unto the Church of Antioch and the publique persons of it Lastly whether the arrow is not shot beyond the mark when it is argued that this Decree is the act of the People because it appears that they assent to it seeing we know by the premises that they were bound to consent to the Acts of the Apostles So in the Power of the Keys and Excommunication what can be so plain as that S. Paul gives sentence upon the incestuous person at Corinth and obliges the Church there to execute his Decree as he calls it in expresse terms 2 Cor. V. 3 4 I conceive I have read an answer to this in some of their writings that this Epistle is Scripture and therefore the matter of it commanded by God But let me instance in the result of the Councell at Jerusalem The Church of Jerusalem was tied by virtue of the Decree for to them there was no Epistle sent Therefore the Church of Antiochia and the rest of the Churches to whom that Epistle was sent which we have Acts XV 23. were tied by virtue of the Decree not by virtue of the Epistle by which they knew themselves tied And let me put the case here Had S. Paul been at Corinth and decreed that which he decreeth by this Epistle had not the Church been tied unlesse he had sent them an Epistle or otherwise made it appear to them that he had a Revelation from God on purpose having made appearance to them that he was the Apostle of Christ Beleeve himself in that case when he says he will doe as much absent as present 2 Cor. XI 11. And again When I come I shall bewail divers 2 Cor. XII 20 21. that is excommunicate them or put them to Penance as I have said Remember the miraculous effect of Excommunication in the Apostles time when by visible punishments inflicted on the excommunicate by evil Angels it appeared that they were cast out of the shadow of Gods Tabernacle and it will seem as probable that this is the Rod which S. Paul threatens the Corinthians with 1 Cor. IV. 21. 2 Cor. X. 2 8. as that many were sick there because they abused the Eucharist 1 Cor. XI 30. Therefore if this effect of the sentence came from the Apostles the sentence also came Here appears a necessary argument from the Legislative Power of the Apostles to the whole Church For as no Christian can deny that the Constitutions of the Apostles oblige the Church so it is manifest that they doe not oblige it because they are written in the Scripture for they were all in force in the Church before the Scriptures were written in which they are related neither doth it evidence that they were first delivered to the Church with assurance that they were by expresse Revelation commanded to be delivered to the Church or because they were passed by votes of the People But by virtue of the generall Commission of the Apostles being received in that quality by those that became Christians and so made a Church So in matter of Ordinations it is well known who they are that have made the People beleeve that Paul and Barnabas Ordained Presbyters in the Churches of their founding by voices of the People signified by the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Acts XIV 22. which being admitted it is but an easie consequence to inferre that all Congregations are absolute because making their Presbyters they must needs first make themselves Churches But he that reads the Text without prejudice easily sees that the Act of Ordaining is here attributed to the Apostles not to the People They the Apostles ordained them to wit the Church or People Presbyters Therefore this Scripture speaks not of Election by Holding up of the Peoples hands but of Ordination by laying on the Hands of the Apostles And therefore in the choice of the seven Deacons it is manifest that the Apostles though they gave way to the People to nominate yet reserved themselves the approving of the persons otherwise the People might have sinned and the Apostles born the blame for it For when S. Paul saith Lay Hands suddenly on no man nor participate of other mens sins 2 Tim. V. 22. it is manifest that he who Imposes Hands ought to have power not to Impose because he sins Imposing amisse Last of all let us consider how liberally the Church of Jerusalem parted with whole estates the Church of Corinth maintained their Feasts of Love wherof we reade 1 Cor. XI 17. the same Corinthians with other Churches offered to the support of the Churches in Judaea 2 Cor. VIII 1 the Philippians sent to supply S. Paul Phil. II 25. 30. IV. 20. And all the rest which we finde recorded in the New Testament of the Oblations of the Faithfull to the maintenance of Gods Service Whence it shall appear in due time that the Indowment of the Church is estated upon it And then let common sense judge whether this came from the understanding and motion and proper devotion of the People or from their Christianity obliging them to follow that Order which the authority and doctrine of the Apostles should shew them to be requisite for their Profession and the support of the Church at that time By all this as it will easily appear that the Chief Interesse and Right in disposing of Church matters could not belong to the People under the Apostles so is it not my purpose to say that at any time the People ought to have no manner of Right or Interesse in the same For if the practice under the Apostles be the best evidence that we can ground Law upon to the Church then it is requisite to the good estate of the Church and necessary for those that can dispose of the publique Order of it to procure that it be such as may give the People reasonable satisfaction in those things wherein they are concerned Which what it requires and how farre it extends I will say somewhat in generall when we come to give bounds to the severall Interests in the publique Power of the Church In the mean time as no water can ascend higher then it descended afore so can no People have any further Right and Power in Church matters then that which the People had under the Apostles because that is all the evidence upon which their Interesse can be grounded and acknowledged Lesse is not to be granted more they must not require CHAP. III. That the Chief power of every Church resteth in the Bishop and Presbyters attended by the Deacons That onely the power of the Keys is
convertible with the Office of Consecrating the Eucharist And therefore that there are no Lay Elders The Right of the Bishop Presbyters and People in Church matters THese things premised I shall here suppose that the reasons heretofore advanced are sufficient to prove that by Ordinance of the Apostles the Government of every such Church consisting of the Body of Christians in a City and the Territory thereof is to rest in a Bishop and a Company or College of Presbyters his Counsell and Assistants in the exercise of the Chief Power thereof to whom are added the Deacons to attend them in executing their commands Adding onely for the present in confirmation of those reasons as followeth First that there is an ordinary Power of Governing Churches of their own planting in the Apostles easily to be distinguished from the power of other Apostles because whereas the generall Commission extends the power of every Apostle to the whole Church those things which we finde recorded either in the Scriptures or in other monuments of Historicall truth which common sense cannot refuse to credit do shew manifest arguments of the speciall exercise thereof de facto in speciall places either by contract when a Christian may think that an agreement might be requisite among such holy persons as we see Gal. II. 9. Or otherwise by occupation and use And this ordinary Power of the Apostles is as easie to be distinguished from the Power of Bishops by the extent of it this of Bishops reaching onely to the Church whereof they are made Bishops Now to make good the proof that Iames Bishop of Jerusalem was one of the Apostles I must here answer two questions which seem to make this opinion hard to beleeve The first because Hegesippus in Eusebius oftentimes mentioning Simeon the son of Cleopas and that he succeeded this James in the Government of that Church never mentions in one syllable any relation of his to this James whom he succeeded which if they had been so near as brothers it seems he would have done The second is this because 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is manifestly a Greek name being the diminutive of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and therefore nothing to Alphaeus which hath another both Originall and signification in the Hebrew The first makes no proof because we have not Hegesippus and therefore cannot presume that he no where said this because we finde it not in those shreds which Eusebius hath related out of him Neither are we bound to presume that either he would write or Eusebius relate out of him that which we at this present conceive to be most necessary to be related because of the dispute presently on foot which to them perhaps was no dispute In fine from that which he says not we cannot conclude the negative but from that which he says we may conclude the tantamount of the affirmative For when Hegesippus in Eusebius Eccles Hist IV. 22. says that Simeon was the second of our Lords Cousins that was made Bishop of Jerusalem to them that knew by the Gospel that the Cousins of our Lord which it cals brothers were James and Joses Judas and Simon Mat. XIII 55. he says in effect that James and Simon were brothers especially Eusebius making the same Simeon the son of Cleopas and Mary Eccles Hist III. 32. which he seems to have from Hegesippus For seeing Mary Cleopas John XIX 25. is in all probability Mary the mother of James the lesse and Joses Mar. XV. 40. Mat. XXVII 55. because we read but of two Maries in the Gospel that followed our Lord beside the blessed Virgin Mat. XXVII 61. And seeing S. Jude cals himself the brother of James Jude 1. And seeing James and Simeon Bishops of Jerusalem are both Cousins to our Lord that is brothers in the language of the Scripture according to Hegesippus it is to be thought that he intended there to signifie that Simeon the son of Cleopas and James Bishop of Jerusalem were brothers The age of Simeon suffering an hundred and twenty years old Euseb Eccles Hist III 32. being so great that he might well succeed his brother in the charge Now James the son of Alphaeus might well be also son of Cleopas and the same mans name Alphaeus and Cleopas because of the custom which we find to have been among the Jews of calling themselves by one name among their own Country men and by another oftentimes near the other in sound among the Greeks and Romanes For if Jason in the Maccabees were called Jesus among the Jews as it appears by Josephus Antiq. XII 6. if Saul and Paul were one Apostle if the first Bishop of Alexandria who is called Ananias in the Antiquities of that Church out of Eutychius be called Anianus in Eusebius if Silas be nothing else but Sylvanus Luke Lucius as learned men cannot choose but beleeve why shall we not beleeve that the same man was called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the Hebrew then used as his name is now written in the Syriack Testament and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the Greek being the diminutive of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 an ordinary proper name at that time And thus it cannot be contradicted that the Church of Jerusalem had one of the Apostles for the first Bishop of it Now whereas it is said that Timothy and Titus had that power which the Scripture witnesseth as Evangelists it is to be demanded by what Scripture it can appear that Evangelists as Evangelists had any Power in any Church That they were near in rank and esteem to the Apostles I grant because of the Scriptures 1 Cor. XII 28. Eph. IV. 12. that Titus was an Evangelist as well as Timothy 2 Tim. IV. 5. I do beleeve because S. Paul says there that he was gone into Dalmatia which being part of Illyricum whither S. Paul had purpose to advance the Gospel as you saw afore there is great appearance that being in durance he imploied Titus to Preach the Gospel and plant Churches there as well as to govern the Churches already setled in Crete And that by the same reason as himself governed all the Churches of his Charge But having shewed such probabilities to think that Evangelists were no more then a secondary rank of Apostles that is men imploied by the Apostles upon any work it cannot be said that by the quality of Evangelists they had power to govern any Church unlesse it can be shewed that the work on which they were imploied was the governing of setled Churches Which cannot be shewed of any but Timothy and Titus by the Epistles to them which shew that they two were appointed in that quality at Ephesus and in Crete For Epaphras that is Epaphroditus for the names are both one that was imploied by the Philippians to S. Paul Phil. II. 25 30. was also imploied no doubt by S. Paul or by some other of the Apostles unlesse we will say that he depended not on them contrary to that which hath
been proved to Preach the Gospel to the Colossians I. 7. and therefore an Evangelist to them but no appearance of any Commission to Govern that Church His charge to the Colossians not hindring his imploiment to S. Paul from the Philippians On the contrary the Commissions given Timothy and Titus by the Epistles directed to them are so far from being temporary that he were no sober man that would give them to him whose charge was intended to cease to morrow Hence we have a competent reason why the name of Bishops should be common to Bishops and Presbyters in the New Testament though the thing which is the Power never was Because the Chief Bishops of that time bore another quality of Apostles Evangelists or Apostles of the Apostles by which while they were called it is reasonable to think that other Bishops and Presbyters between whom there was not that distance as between the greatest of them and Apostles or Evangelists should be called by the common name of Bishops An instance you have in the Synagogue For the Bodies of Jews residing in the severall Cities of their dispersions being governed by Colleges or Consistories of Presbyters both the Heads and the Members of those Colleges are called by a common name in the plurall number 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Acts XVIII 8 17 or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 XIII 15. which in the Gospels seem to be the same with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 absolutely Luc. XIV 1. which notwithstanding we finde expresly in Epiphanius that the Chief of them was called also Archisynagogus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 his inferiours Presbyters the Deacons 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in Epiphanius his Greek as in the Jews writings 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 So that we are to think that in those times also whereof the Scriptures of the New Testament speak there was one set over the rest though all goe by one name because we know that in the great Consistory whether at Jerusalem or in their dispersions so it was always By this correspondence having shewed afore that the Power of the Consistories is that which the Church succeeds the Synagogue in it is manifest that all the seeming difficulty of this little objection is removed To the argument drawn from the Angels of the seven Churches of Asia I adde onely a reply to the answer that is now brought that Angels stand there for Presbyteries or Colleges of Presbyters For now it appears too grosse to take Angels for Churches in that place because the Scripture saith expresly Apoc. I. 20. that the Churches are there signified by Candlesticks and it appears now an inconvenience to take the Candlestick for the Candle But no lesse inconvenience will be seen in this answer if we consider that it must be proved to signifie so either by some reason of Grammar or of Rhetorick That an Angel is put for a Presbyter or Bishop is a metaphor very reasonable because of the correspondence between them But an Angel cannot stand for Presbyters by reason of Grammar unlesse either the word be a Collective signifying a multitude in the singular number or else the Construction shew that the singular stands for the plurall nor by reason of Rhetorick unlesse some body can shew us how an Angel is like a College None of which reasons is to be seen either in the Text or in the nature of the Subject To the premises I adde now this argument drawn from that observation which I have advanced in the Book of the Apostolicall form of Divine Service p. 71. out of the Apostolicall Constitutions Ignatius Dionysius Arcopagita and the Jews Constitutions that in the Primitive Church the Presbyters were wont to sit by themselves in a half Circle at the East end of the Church with their faces turned to the faces of the People the Deacons standing behinde them as waiting on them but the Bishop on a Throne by himself in the midst of the Presbyters seats For if this form were in use under the Apostles then was the difference of Bishops and Presbyters brought in by Ordinance of the Apostles And that it was in use under the Apostles may appear by the Representation of the Church Triumphant Apoc. IV. V. for he that knows the premises and findes there XXIV Elders equall in number to the XII Heads of the Tribes of Israel and the XII Apostles surrounded with ministring spirits standing about them as the Deacons in the Church stood about the Presbyters the Congregation standing with their faces turned to the Presbyters as the People in the Church at Divine Service how can he doubt that the Throne of God in the midst of the Thrones of the XXIV Presbyters is correspondent to the Bishops Chair in the Church Militant under the Apostles knowing that so soon after the Apostles just so it was seated They that expound this Vision to resemble the Camp of Israel in the Desert Numb II. where about the Ark were IV Standards answerable to the IV Creatures about the Throne then the Tribe of Levi invironing the Sanctuary and the Camp of Israel that do make the IV Creatures as farre distant from the Throne as the Standards of the IV leading Tribes were from the Tabernacle and the Presbyters Seats to compasse the Throne behinde before and on both sides Whereas in the Visions of Esay VI. 1 and Ezekiel I. 1 which all agree that this is borrowed from the IV Creatures stand close to the Throne as attending peculiarly upon Gods immediate commands Besides the IV Creatures are said to stand 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 IV. 6. that is two at the two fore corners and two at the two hind corners of the Throne For otherwise it cannot be understood how they can be said to stand both round about the Throne and in the middle of the Throne which the Test says expresly that is in the distance between the Throne and the Presbyters Seats which words can have no sense if we conceive the IV Creatures to stand where the IV Sandards of the Camp stood Besides the Lamb is said to stand 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 VII 6. which is more expresly said V. 6. to be in the middest of the Throne Creatures and Elders Which words expresly describe that Compasse of a half Circle which the Throne invironed with the IV Creatures and the XXIV Presbyters Seats makes in which Compasse the Lamb is properly described to stand before the Throne Again the multitude that stands before the Throne and the Lamb VII 19. are manifestly the same that are called the souls under the Altar VI. 10. though commonly they are conceived to lie under the Altar and from thence to cry for vengeance For the Altar there mentioned is not the Altar of burnt Sacrifices but the Altar of Incense before the Vail Which Incense in this Case is the Prayers of the Saints which the Elders offer V. 8. the Angel puts Incese to VIII 3. whereupon follows the vengeance which the souls under the Altar
So Acts XV. 35. Paul and Barnabas continued at Antiochia Teaching that is the Church and preaching the Gospell to wit to Unbeleevers And with the same difference it is said of our Lord in the Gospels Mat. IV. 23. IX 35. XI 1. that he Taught to wit as a Prophet who had always the Privilege of Teaching in the Synagogues as his Disciples also by the same Title and preached the Gospel as sent by God for that extraordinary purpose But though the Apostles being sent to preach the Gospel were by consequence to Teach the Church yet is it never said that Presbyters being appointed to Teach the Church were also called to Preach the Gospel For their Relation being to Churches as much perswaded of the truth of Christianity as themselves they needed no such qualities as might make evidence that they were sent immediately from God to convince the world of the truth of it But onely such understanding in it above the people of their respective Churches as might inable them to conduct the People thereof in it And therefore what hindreth their Inferiours also to be imploied in Teaching the Church which now we call Preaching For if our Lord and his Apostles imploied their respective Ministers in Teaching those whom they could not attend upon themselves and in all Churches after the example of the first at Jerusalem Deacons or Ministers were Ordained to wait upon the Bishops and Presbyters of the same in the execution of their Office is it not the same thing for Bishops and Presbyters to imploy their Deacons in Preaching to those of their own Church as it is for the Apostles at Jerusalem to imploy S. Steven and S. Philip S. Paul Timothy or Erastus or Tychieus or Epaphroditus in Preaching to Unbeleevers for there remains as much difference in their Charges as in their Chiefs from whom they are imploied Besides who is able to prove by the Scriptures that those who are called Doctors 1 Cor. XII 28. Eph. IV. 12. were all of them men Ordained by Imposition of Hands as Presbyters Between whom and Evangelists there seems to be the same difference as between 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 on the one part and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 on the other this relating to Assemblies of Christians and importing the instructing of them in the right understanding of that Christianity which they already beleeve and professe that to those who are not Christians as undertaking to reduce them to Christianity which supposeth Commission and abilities answerable Further the supposed S. Ambrose upon Eph. IV. 12. comparing Evangelists with Deacons says that Deacons also taught without a Chair The custome of the Church then admitting them to Preach upon occasions but not sitting as the Bishop and Presbyters did Because they did not sit but stand in the Church as the Angels in the Revelation about the Presbyters Chairs as attending upon their commands And what is this but the same which you finde in use in the Synagogue Acts XIII 14. where Paul stands up to Preach whereas our Lord sits down like a Doctor when he goes to Preach in the Synagogue Luc. IV. 20 by which it appears that it was of custome drawn from the Synagogue for Deacons to Preach in the Church And indeed in the last place the practice of the Synagogue together with the reason of it and the Primitive practice of the Church agreeable to the same seems to make as full proof as a reasonable man can desire in a matter of this nature For in the Synagogue it is so manifest that Jurisdiction is above Doctrine and the Power of Governing above the Office of Teaching that the Prophets themselves who were Doctors of the Law immediately sent by God were subject to the Power and Jurisdiction of the Consistory setled by the Law Deut. XVII 8 12. So that though by the Law of Deut. XVIII 18. the whole Synagogue are subject to Gods curse if they obey not the Prophet by whom God speaks yet because it was possible that false Prophets might pretend to be sent from God therefore in the next words of the Law a mark is given to discern who was sent by God and who was not and he that pretended to be sent by God and was not being tried by this mark became liable to capitall punishment by the Law of Deut. XVII 8 12. for teaching contrary to that which the Consistory taught So that by this Law the Consistory hath Power of life and death even over Prophets whom they judged to teach things destructive to the Law And by this Power not usurped but abused our Lord also suffered under Pilate according to that which he had said in respect of this Power It is unpossible that a Prophet perish out of Jerusalem Luc. XIII 33. that is not condemned by the Consistory The Successors of the Prophets after the Spirit of Prophesie ceased that is their Scribes and Wise men and Doctors received the Privilege of Teaching the Law from their Masters For whosoever had learned in the School of a Doctor till forty years of age was thenceforth counted a Doctor as the Talmud Doctors determine and thereby privileged to decide matters of Conscience in the Law provided that he did it not while his Master lived and where he was R. Solomon upon the Title Sanedrin X. 2. Maimoni in the Title of Learning the Law cap. V. But if I mistake not in our Lords time they were counted so at thirty years of age For Irenaeus II. 39. says that our Lord began to Preach at the same age at which men were counted Doctors manifestly referring to this Rule of the Synagogue And this is the Reason which the Church afterwards followed in all those Canons by which it is forbidden that any man be made Presbyter being lesse then thirty years of age because at those years our Lord and S. John Baptist began to Preach though by an extraordinary Commission yet according to the custome of the Synagogue in their time saith Irenaeus But by Imposition of Hands they were further qualified to sit and Judge in their Consistories Whereby we see how Jurisdiction includes Doctrine but is not included in it So that the Metaphoricall Jurisdiction of the Church by the power of the Keys belonging as all sides agree to Presbyters it is agreeable to the perpetuall custome of Gods people that the Office of Teaching be communicable to their inferiours But with such dependence upon the Bishop and Presbyters as may be correspondent to the Rule of the Synagogue In which he that taught any thing as of Gods Law contrary to the Consistory and persisted in it was liable to capitall punishment by the Law so often quoted of Deut. XVII 8 Sanedrin X. 2. Maimoni in the Title of Rebels cap. III. And therefore he that Teaches contrary to the Church it behoveth that he be liable to Excommunication from it And upon these terms I suppose those of the Congregations will give
me no great thanks for saying that it is not against Gods Law that those who are not in Holy Orders do Preach For that which I have alleged for this in the Apostolicall form of Divine Service p. 420. out of that notable Epistle in Eusebius Eccles Hist VI. 20. in behalf of Origen who before he was Presbyter was imploied in Preaching by the Bishop of Caesarea consists in divers instances of other persons of Origens rank which Preached indeed but all by Commission from their respective Bishops who were themselves by their Places the Doctors in Chief of their respective Churches And if this be against Divine Right as we agree it is for any under the rank of a Presbyter to celebrate the Eucharist how shall any Church allow men to Preach for triall of their abilities before they attain that rank in which they are ordinarily to doe it That which hath been said of Preaching is to be said much more in my opinion of Baptism If the charge of Baptizing given the Apostles had been meant of the Office of Ministring not of the power of granting it what reason could there be that S. Peter having converted Cornelius and his company should not baptize them in person but command them to be baptized Acts IX 48 And if the Apostles imploy their Deacon S. Philip to Preach and to Baptize is it not by consequence that the Governours of particular Churches imploy their Deacons about the same In the Synagogue it cannot be said that the office of Circumcising ever required any higher quality then that of a person circumcised And therefore in the Church if there can be any question whether a person is to be admitted to Baptism or not it is the Chief Power of the Church that must determine it Or if the occasion require Solemnity which may argue him that Officiates it to be Chief in the Church no Deacon nor Presbyter must presume to doe it before the Bishop But because Baptisme is the gate as well of the invisible Church as of the visible and because the occasions are many and divers which indanger the preventing of so necessary an Office by death in this regard the practice of the Primitive Church alleged by Tertullian de Bapt. cap. XVIII must not be condemned whereby Baptism given by him that is only baptized is not onely valid but well done Though my intent hereby is not to say that it may not be restrained to Presbyters and Deacons when the Church is so provided of them that there is no appearance that Baptisme can be prevented for want of one But though I doe for these causes refuse the reason that Presbyterians can give why onely Presbyters may celebrate the Eucharist I am not therefore much more in love with that which the School Doctors give when they conceive that the Apostles were made Priests by our Lord at his last Supper when he said Do this For we do not find this exposition of these words authorized by the first ages of the Church or any Writers of that time And where the School Doctors speak not out of the mouth of the Primitive Church I make no difficulty to take them for none of my Authors And truly in this case the Text of the Scripture seems to be plain enough for the Command of our Lord Doe this in remembrance of me must needs speak to the same persons as the rest that goes afore Take eate drink divide this among you which belonging to the whole Church it is manifest the Precept Do this belonging also to the whole Church cannot make any difference of qualities in it In this difficulty then it will be hard to find any anchor so sure as that of Tertullian De Cor. cap. III. where making a Catalogue of Orders and Rules observed in the Church which are not found delivered in terms of Precept in the Scriptures he prosecuteth it thus Eucharistiae Sacramentum in tempore victus omnibus à Domino mandatum etiam antelucanis coetibus nec nisi de manu Praesidentium sumimus The Sacrament of the Eucharist was commended to the Church at meat saith Tertullian Is not this the expresse word of our Lord for when he saith Doe this is it not manifest that he commandeth to celebrate the Eucharist at the end of Supper as himself presently had done Sure enough the Primitive Church understood it so for the Ministery of Tables in the Acts of the Apostles for which the Apostles provide themselves Deacons and the Feasts of Love which S. Paul regulates at Corinth are enough to shew us that the Eucharist came at the end of them And so Tertullian shews that it was in his time when he sayes that they received the Eucharist at their Assemblies before day also that is to say as well as at their Feasts of Love at which our Lord ordained it But though there be no Precept extant in the Scripture that the Eucharist be used at those Assemblies of the Church which are held meerly for the Service of God besides those Feasts of Love yet if my reasons propounded in the Apostolicall Form of Divine Service p. 291. have not failed which hitherto so far as I know are not contradicted it doth appear by the Scripture that it was so under the Apostles And therefore that onely Presbyters are to celebrate the Eucharist the Church will be confidently assured because it appears by these words of Tertullian that this was the Primitive practice of the Church Especially if by any circumstance of Scripture it may appear to have been derived from the Apostles Which perhaps comparing the premises with the nature of the Eucharist will not fail us To shew that those who did eat of the Sacrifices of the Gentiles were accessory to their Idolatries the Apostle 1 Cor. X. 16 instanceth in the Jews who by eating of their Sacrifices did communicate with the Altar that is with God to whom that which was consumed upon the Altar belonged And because Christianity supposeth that the Gentiles Sacrifices were offered to Devils therefore the Gentiles communicating with Devils by eating the remains of their Sacrifices as the Jews with God that it was not lawfull to eat of their Sacrifices for them that communicated with God in the Eucharist as the Jews did with the same true God and the Gentiles with the Devils by their Sacrifices Thus the Apostles argument supposeth that in the Eucharist Christians do participate of the Sacrifice of the Crosse as Jews and Gentiles do of their Sacrifices and so that the purpose thereof is that by it we may participate of the Sacrifice offered to God upon the Crosse Which being carried by our Lord within the Vail into the most Holy Place of the Heavens to be presented to God as it is declared at large Hebr. IX 11 is notwithstanding no lesse participated by Christians then the Jews do participate of their peace-Offerings Which the Apostle teaches again when he tels the Hebrews XIII 10. that
out of the Scriptures it will be easie to drive a worse Trade of Preaching then ever Priests did of private Masses The one tending only to feed themselves the other to turn the good order of the world which is the Harbour of the Church into publique confusion to feed themselves the profaning of Gods Ordinance being common to both And if the taking away of private Masses must be by turning the Eucharist out of doors saving twice or thrice a year for fashions sake it is but Lycurgus his Reformation to stock up the Vines for fear men be drunk with the wine The Church of England is clear in this businesse The Order whereof as it earnestly sighs and grones toward the restoring of publique Penance the onely mean established by the Apostles to maintain the Church in estate to communicate continually so it recommendeth the continuall celebration of the Eucharist at all the more solemne Assemblies of Lords days and Festivals As for the Sermon it is to be when it can be had and were it now abated when such Sermons cannot bee had as were fitting it is easie to undertake that there would be room enough left for the celebration of the Eucharist In the mean time the Reformers of this Age had they considered so well as it behoved them what they undertook should easily have found that the continuall celebration of the Eucharist at all the more solemne Assemblies of the Church and the Discipline of Penance to maintain the people in a disposition fit to communicate in it is such a point of Reformation in the Church that without restoring it all the rest is but meer noise and pretence if not mischief Now the reason why the celebration of the Eucharist is reserved to Presbyters alone in consequence to the premises is very reasonable and will be effectuall to shew that it is common to all Presbyters and therefore that there is no such thing as Lay Elders For seeing all agree that Presbyters have their share in the Power of the Keys though the Chief Interess in it be the Bishops according to the Doctrine of the Church and seeing the work of this Power is to admit to the Prayers of the Church as S. John sheweth when he describeth Excommunication by not praying for the sins of the excommunicate and seeing it appeareth by S. James that the Prayers of the Church for the sins of them whom the Church prayeth for are the Prayers of the Presbyters what can we conceive more reasonable and consequent to the premises then that the Power of the Keys is convertible with the Office of celebrating the Eucharist belonging to the Bishop and Presbyters by virtue of it For what can be more agreeable then that the Prayers of the Church which the Eucharist is celebrated with be offered by those that are to discern who is to be admitted who excluded from the same This is the meaning of Josephus the Jew in Epiphanius against the Ebionites where being baptized by the Bishop of Tiberias at his parting he gives him money saying Offer for me for it is written Whose sins ye remit they are remitted and whose sins ye retain they are retained Expressing thereby the sense of Primitive Christians who when they were admitted to the Prayers of the Church which the Eucharist is offered to God with made account thereby that the Power of the Keys was passed and continually did passe upon them to the remission of sins Whereupon we see that it is an ordinary censure of the ancient Canons that he which did so or so his oblations be not received that is that he be out of the number of those for whom the Prayers of the Church are made which the Eucharist is offered with Therefore Ignatius thus prosecuteth the words last quoted He that is without the Sanctuary saith he comes short of the Bread of God For if the Prayer of one or two be so forcible with God what shall we think of the Prayer of the Bishop and the whole Church For the efficacy of the Prayers of the Church dependeth upon the Unity of the Church And the Power of the Keys is that which containeth that Unity It is therefore agreeable that those Prayers which are of this efficacy be the Prayers of them whom this Unity and the Power which preserves it is trusted with And for this reason though all Christians be Priests as the Scripture says 1 Pet. II. 5. Apoc. I. 6. by a far better title then Moses promises the Israelites Ex. XIX 6. The Sacrifice of Prayer being the act of the whole Church Yet notwithstanding it is by good right that Bishops and Presbyters are called Sacerdotes or Sacrificers in regard of the same Sacrifice of Prayer and Thanksgiving for which all Christians are called Sacrificers That is to say by way of excellence because that which is the act of all is by ordinance of the Apostles passed upon the whole Church reserved to be executed and ministred by them whom that Power which preserveth that Unity which inforceth the Prayers of the Church is trusted with He that refuseth this reason as built upon consequences that convince not must by consequence acknowledge that the celebration of the Eucharist is peculiar to Presbyters meerly by universall and perpetuall practice of the Church derived from the Order setled by the Apostles Which whether those of the Presbyteries will admit I leave to themselves to advise For as for their pretense that the Ministery of both Sacraments is convertible with the Office of Preaching upon which they style their Pastors or Preaching Elders Ministers of the Word and Sacraments it appears to be as void of any ground from the Scriptures as it is wide from the originall and Universall practice of the Church The Ministery of the Word being the Office of Apostles and Evangelists according to the Scriptures The Ministery of Baptism and Preaching communicable to Deacons and possibly to Lay men onely the celebration of the Eucharist proper to the Power of the Keys in Bishops and Presbyters But putting all the reasons that here are advanced to compromise yet out of the premises we have two effectuall arguments to convince the nullity of Lay Elders The first from the manner of sitting in the Church In as much as it hath been shewed that the Order and custome of it is to be derived from the Apostles themselves as being in use in their time For if the manner of their sitting in the Church were so distinguished that all the Presbyters sate in one Rank in the uppermost Room with the Bishop in the midst that is in the Head of them his Seat advanced above theirs as S. Hierome witnesseth of the Bishops of Alexandria from S. Mark from which manner of sitting they are called by the Greek Fathers 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as in the Scriptures 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and in Tertullian praesidentes how can common sense desire better evidence that there are but two qualities
which no publick thing could passe I do here willingly mention Ignatius because of the injustice of that exception that is made against him Surely had we none but the old Copy which for my part is freely confessed to be interpolated and mixed with passages of a later hand I would confidently appeal to the common sense of any man not fascinated with prejudice how that can be imagined to be always foisted in which is the perpetuall subject of all his Epistles Dwelling onely upon the avoiding of Heresy and Schism and the avoiding of Schism every where inculcated to consist in this that without the Bishop nothing be done and all with advice of the Presbyters But it seems to me a speciall act of Providence that the true Copy of these Epistles free from all such mixture is published during this dispute among us Which the L. Primate of Ireland having first smelt out by the Latine Translation which he published Isaak Vossius according as he presumed hath now found and published out of the Library at Florence farre enough from suspition of partiality in this cause Nor is the learned Blondell to be regarded presuming to stigmatize so clear a Record for forged It seemes that his Book was written before he saw this Copy and had he not condemned it in his Preface he must have suppressed and condemned his own work But when it appears that this Record is admitted as true and native of all that are able to judge of letters it must appear by consequence that he hath given sentence against his own Book In the mean time it is to be lamented that by the force of prejudice so learned a man had rather that the advantage of so many pregnant authorities of a companion of the Apostles against the Socinians should be lost to the Church then part with his own whether opinion or interesse condemned by the same evidence Certainly those weak exceptions from the style of Ignatius have more in them of will then of reason to all that have relished that simplicity of language which called by S. Paul 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is to be seen in the writings of Apostolicall persons Irenaeus Justine Clemens Romanus and after them Epiphanius and the Apostolicall Constitutions And he was very forward to finde exceptions that could imagine that Ignatius calleth the Order of Bishops 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 because he so qualifieth the Ordination of Damas Bishop of the Magnesians being a young man when he was ordained Bishop As for the mention of the Valentinians Heresie in them he hath been fully told again and again that the seeds of it are extant before Ignatius in the writings of the Apostles But as to my present purpose he that considers of what consequence the Unity of the Church is to the advancement of Christianity and of what consequence not only Ignatius but S. Cyprian S. Hierome and all men of judgement professe the Power of Bishops to be to the preservation of Unity in the Church will not begge the question with Blondell by condemning Ignatius his Epistles because the one half of the subject of them is this one Rule nothing to be done without the Bishop all things to be done by advice of the Presbyters That to the Philadelphians is remarkable above the rest where he affirmeth that having no intelligence from any man of the divisions that were among them the Holy Ghost revealing it to him said within him for the means of composing them Without the Bishop let nothing be done If it be said that this Rule is ineffectuall hindring rather then expediting the course of businesse The answer is that it is enough that thus much is determined by the Apostles the rest remaining to be further limited by humane right as the state of the Church shall require According to this Rule it is justly said that Baptism is not given but by a Bishop as it is given only by those whom the Order of any Church which was never put in force without the Bishop inableth to give it A thing manifestly seen by Confirmation What reason can we imagine that Philip the Deacon being inabled to doe miracles for the conversion of the Samaritanes was not inabled to give the Holy Ghost but the Apostles must come down to do it Was it not to shew that all graces of that kinde were subject to the graces of the Apostles in the Visible Church whereof they were then Chief Governours So that as then those that received the Holy Ghost were thereby demonstrated to be members of the Visible Church in which God evidenced his presence by that grace So was it always found requisite that Christians be acknowledged members of the Visible Church by the Prayers and Blessing of their Successors Which Order as it serves to demonstrate this Succession to all that are void of prejudice so had it been improved to this Apostolicall intent what time as all Christians began to be baptized in infancy renuing the contract of Christianity that is the promise of Baptism and the Chief Pastors acknowledgement of them for members of the Church upon that contract by blessing them with Imposition of Hands without doubt it had been and were the most effectuall mean to retain and retrive the ancient Discipline of Church When men might see themselves by their own solemne profession obliged to forfeit the communion of the Church by forfeiting the terms on which they were admitted to it If it can thus be said that Baptism is not given without the Bishop much more will the same be said of other acts of the Power of the Keys whereof that is the first Presbyters have an interesse in it limitable by Canonicall Right but as to the Visible Church that any man be excommunicate without a Bishop is against this Rule of the Apostles About Ordinations divers matters of fact are in vain alleged by Blondell and others from the ancient Records of the Church tending to degrade Bishops into the rank of Presbyters If the Gothes from the time of Valeriane to the Councell of Nice for some LXX years as he conjectureth out of Philostorgius II. 5. if the Scots before Palladius as Fordone III. 8. and John Maire II. 2. relate retained Christianity under Presbyters alone without Bishops they had not in that estate the power of governing their own Churches in themselves but depended on their neighbours that ordained them those Presbyters and the Government of the Church among them then must be as now among the Abassines where their one Bishop does nothing but Ordain them Presbyters as Godignus ubi supra relates And as the Catholick Christians of Antiochia lived for some XXXIV years after the banishment of Eustathius Theodoret Eccles Hist I. 21. But if the Gothes had Bishops before Vlfitas at the Councell of Nice as he shews out of the Ecclesiasticall Histories is any man so mad as to grant him who never endeavours to prove it that they were made by their own Presbyters
Paul and Barnabas being Ordained by the immediate act of the Holy Ghost to Preach to the Gentiles the solemnity thereof is performed by those in whom we cannot imagine the Power of sending them to rest In which opinion I am much confirmed by the practice of the Synagogue For though it is manifest that the custome of promoting Judges by Imposition of Hands came from the example of Moses and the Ordaining of the LXX Elders and Joshua yet we must beleeve their Records compiled by Maimoni â—â— de Synedrio cap. IV. when they tell us that in processe of time it was done without that solemnity by an Instrument or so and yet still called neverthelesse 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is Imposition of Hands And now let them that demand what is that speciall Act which Bishops are able to do and Presbyters not take their choice If they be content that the Bishops acting with this Interesse that without him nothing be done be counted a speciall Act they have the speciall Act which they demand in all things that are done in the Church If they be not though it is easie enough to dispute it everlastingly yet I will not contend with them about it seeing it is enough that nothing is done without him to make him a fair step above his Presbyters And yet I conceive there is an Act to be named peculiar to Bishops which is to sit in a Councell Which consisting of the representatives of all Churches and not capable of all Presbyters and the Bishops right being that without him nothing be done in his Church it follows that by the right by which he is a Bishop he is a member of his Synod which no Priest can be but by Privilege seeing the whole Order cannot And this according to the Scriptures For by the premises the Apostles had place in the Councell at Jerusalem as Ordinary Governours of the Churches concerned in it which Churches had there no other representatives but Paul and Barnabas as Heads of the Churches which they had founded so lately Acts XIII XIV as it appeares when by them the Decree is delivered to execution in the Churches Acts XVI 4. As for the Presbyters mentioned in it the same evidence which assures us that they were Presbyters assures us also that they were Presbyters of the Church at Jerusalem and none else This I conceive the fittest to be thought the speciall Act of a Bishop For the unity of the whole Church arises from the Power deposited in each Church By virtue whereof he that communicates with any one Church in any rank of it communicates with all Churches in the same Which was in the Primitive Church the effect of the literae formatae or letters of mark by which this Unity of the Ancient Church was maintained in as much as he that travelled with such a testimony of his rank in any one Church by virtue of the same was received in all Churches where he came And therefore Synesius in the sentence of excommunication against Andronicus which by his fifty seventh Epistle he publisheth to the Churches addeth that if any Church contemning the sentence of his Church as a small and a poor one should receive Andronieus to communion without satisfaction given to him and his Church thereby it shall become guilty of Schism This holds as such Acts are not questioned by any greater part of the Church as not concerning the State of other Churches Which if they be then as no Church can be concluded but by the Act to which themselves concur whereby all Excommunications Ordinations as wel as making of Canons are the subject of Synods so the chief Power must needs be most seen in that Act which concludes all Churches concerned which is the Act of a Synod As concerning the objection that there is no precept in the Scripture that Bishops govern all Churches and that many things Ordained by the Apostles are abolished in the Church It is a question whether it come from lesse skill or proceed to worse consequence For unlesse we will betray the advantages of the Church to very many and perhaps to all Heresies and Schisms that ever were we must confesse that as there are precepts in the Scripture that oblige not so there are many things not set down in the Scripture in the form of precepts that oblige What can be delivered in a more expresse form of precept then that of Saint Paul That women pray with their heads covered men with theirs uncovered and yet where is it in force The same is to be said of the Decree of Jerusalem against eating things strangled and blood On the other side we finde by the Scriptures that the Apostles kept the Lords Day but do not find there that they commanded it to be kept As for the fourth Commandement I suppose it is one thing to rest on the day that God ceased his work and another on the day that he began it And if there be precepts in the Scripture that now oblige not why may not Secinus dispute that the precept of Baptism was temporary for them that had been enemies to the Faith afore And though I say not that he shall have the better hand for the truth cannot be contrary to the truth yet it shall not be possible for every Christian to discern whether he hath it or no unlesse there be some more sensible ballast then nice consequences from the Text of the Scripture If it be thus of Baptism much more of the Eucharist which as you saw is not used any more in the Church as it was instituted As for the Power of the Keys it is absolutely by this answer betraied to the Socinians who would have it peculiar to the Apostles For it is no where delivered as a Precept but onely as a Privilege What means is there then to end everlasting difficulties Surely the same that there is to understand all positive Laws that ever were For if the ancient interruption of the practice of any Law secure the Church that it was not given to all times and places sure that which is not mentioned as a Precept and yet has been always in practice without interruption as it was in force afore it was mentioned so was intended to oblige not by the mention but by the act that first established it evidenced by practice Which if it be so then is there no Power on earth able to abolish the Order of Bishops having been in force in all Churches ever since the Apostles I must not passe this place of limiting all Interests without a word or two of the Office of Deacons in the Church In regard of two extreme opinions one of Geneva that makes them meer Lay men collectors of Alms by necessary consequence because under their Lay Elders the other of some that would have them understood to be Presbyters as oft as S. Paul mentions but two Orders of Bishops and Deacons Phil. I. 1. 1 Tim. II. 9. But as
the Apostles were at first their own Deacons before the Church allowed them some to wait on them and yet their whole function was then holy though some parts of it nearer to the end of the souls health So when Deacons were made reason inforces that they should attend on the meanest part of the Office of the Apostles but always on holy duties For the Tables which the Apostles saw first furnished themselves but were attended by the Deacons in doing it when they were made were the same which S. Paul speaks of 1 Cor. XI 20 which the Eucharist was celebrated at as the custome was daily to doe at Jerusalem Acts II. 42 46. and therefore their office by this was the same then as always it hath been since to wait upon the celebration of the Eucharist Secondly I have shewed afore that even the Apostles and their followers the Evangelists were also Deacons with as much difference as there is between the persons whom they served that is between our Lord and his Apostles on one side and the Bishop and Presbyters of a Church on the other Whereupon the Ministers of Bishops and Presbyters are called Deacons absolutely and the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 without any addition signifies to execute a Deacons Office 1 Tim. III 10. But the Apostles and Evangelists are called Deacons with additions signifying whose Ministers or to what speciall purpose as hath been said Thirdly when S. Paul says They that doe the office of a Deacon well purchase themselves a good step 1 Tim. II. 13. Clemens Alexandrinus and the practice of the Church interprets this step to be the rank of Presbyters Therefore they were in the next degree to it afore Fourthly it hath been shewed that they sate not but stood in the Church as attending the Bishop and Presbyters sitting and yet were imploied in the Offices of Preaching and Baptizing And accordingly in the Primitive Church a great part of the Service reading Lessons singing Psalms and some part of the Prayers were ministred by them as I have shewed in the Apostolicall form of Divine Service cap. X. Which held correspondently in the Synagogue For the Ministers and Apparitors of their Consistories were also their Deacons and ministred Divien Service in the Synagogue Whereby it appears to be the Ordinance of the Apostles that the younger sort of those that dedicated themselves to the service of the Church should be trained up in the service of the Bishop and Presbyters as well to the understanding of Christianity as to the right exercise of Ecclesiasticall Offices that in their time such as proved capable might come to govern in the Church themselves That which remains concerning the Interesse of the People in the Church will be easily discharged if we remember that it must be such as may not prejudice either the dependence of Churches or the Chief Power of the Bishop with the Presbyters in each particular Church The Law of the XII Tables Salus populi suprema lex esto though it were made for a popular State not for a Kingdome yet admits a difference between populus and plebs and requires the chief Rule to be the good both of Senate and Commons not of one part alone So likewise that which is said in the Scriptures to have been done by the Church must not therefore be imagined to be done by the People Because the Church consists of two parts called by Tertullian Oâ—do and Plebs in the terms of latter times the Clergy and People but preserving the respective Interests of Clergy and People In the choice of Matthias it is said They set two Acts I. 23. what they but the Church in which the People were then better Christians then to abridge the Apostles but proportionably they are always to respect the Bishop and Presbyters if they will obey the Apostles that command it 1 Thess V. 12 13. Heb. XIII 7 17. So when S. Paul says Doe not ye judge those that are within 1 Cor. V. 12. speaks he to the People or to the Church that is to the Bench of Presbyters and the People in their severall interests and that not without dependence upon the Apostles The words of our Lord Dic Ecclesiae Mat. XVIII 18. make much noise At the end of my Book of the Apostolicall form of Divine Service p. 428 you have a passage of S. Augustine Cont. Epist Parmen III. 2. that Excommunication is the sentence of the Church And yet I suppose no man hath the confidence to dispute that in S. Augustines time it was the sentence of the People So the Excommunication of Andronicus in Synesius his seven and fiftieth Epistle is intitled to the Church yet no man imagines that the People then did excommunicate Is not the case the same in the Synagogue Moses is commanded to speak to the Congregation of the children of Israel and he speaks to the Elders Exod. XII 2 25. does Moses disobey God in so doing or does he understand the command of God better then this opinion would have him in speaking to the Elders who he knew were to act on behalf of the People The Law commands the Congregation to offer for ignorance Lev. IV. 13 14. Num. XV. 22 24. how shall all the Congregation offer Maimoni answers in the Title of Errors cap. XII XIII that the great Consistory offers as often as they occasion the breach of the Law by Teaching that is interpreting it erroneously In the Law of the Cities of Refuge it is said The Congregation shall judge and the Congregation shall deliver the manslayer Num. XXXV 35 36. The Elders of the City of Refuge were to judge in presence and in behalf of the People whether the manslayer was capable of the privilege of the City of Refuge or not as you reade Joshua XX. 4 6. seeing then that these things being done by the Elders are said to be done by the Synagogue or Assembly of the People in behalf of whom they are done is it a wrong to the Scriptures when we say that which they report to be done by the Church was acted by the chief power of the Apostles and Presbyters with consent of the People For it is manifest in the Scriptures that in the Apostles times all publique Acts of the Church were passed at the publique Assemblies of the same as Ordinations Acts I. 23. VI. 3 6. Excommunications Mat. XVIII 18 19 20. 1 Cor. V. 4. 2 Cor. II. 10. Councels Acts XV. 4 27. Other Acts 2 Cor. VIII 19. And herewith agrees the Primitive custome of the Church for divers ages to be seen in a little Discourse of the Learned Blondell Of the Right of the People in the Church published of late And can this be thought to no purpose unlesse it dissolve the Unity of the Church or that obedience to the Clergy which God commandeth Is it nothing to give satisfaction to the People of the integrity of the proceedings of the Church and by the same mean
laid them down at the Apostles feet to signifie that they submitted them to their disposing For this cause Deacons were created to execute their disposition of the same For this cause the contributions of the Church of Antiochia are consigned to the Presbyters of Jerusalem Acts XI 30. that they who were Ordained by that time for afore there is no mention of them might dispose of them under the Apostles For this cause Timothy is directed how to bestow this stock among the Widows and Presbyters that the Widows might attend upon prayer day and night and upon other good works concerning the community of the Church 1 Tim. V. 5 10. as Anna the Widow in the Gospel Luc. II. 36 37. and as the good women that kept guard about the Tabernacle Ex. XXXVIII 8. 1 Sam. II. 22. And for this cause S. Peter forbiddeth the Presbyters to domineer over the Clergy 1 Pet. V. 3. to wit in disposing of their maintenance out of this common stock of the Church Here it will be said that all this expresses no quantity ot part of every mans estate to ground a right of Tithes and that no man desires better then to give what he list And the answer is as ready that no man desires more provided he list to give what Christianity requires And that for the determination of what Christianity requires he list to stand to the perpetuall practice of the Church when as by those things which we finde recorded in the Scriptures it appears to be derived from the Apostles themselves First it is not the Law that first commanded to pay Tithes Because we know they were paid by Abraham and Jacob they that think they were not due by Right before the Law because Jacob vows them Gen. XXVIII 20. doe not remember our Vow of Baptism the subject whereof is things due before God requires them as his own before For God saith first that Tithes are his own Lev. XXVII 30. to wit by a Law in force afore the Law of Moses and then gives them to the Priests for their Service in the Tabernacle Then it cannot stand with Christianity which supposeth greater grace of God then the Law to allow a scarcer proportion to the maintenance of Gods Service then the Law requires Now the Law requires first two sorts of First fruits the one to be taken by the Priest at the Barn Num. XVIII 12. the other to be brought to the Sanctuary Exod. XXII 29. XXIII 19. Deut. XXVI 1 the quantity of either being in the moderate Account a fiftieth as S. Hierome upon Ezek. XLV agreeing with the Jews Constitutions in Maimoni of First-fruits cap. II. and of Separations cap. III. determineth it though the Scripture Ezek. XLV 13. require but the sixtieth After that a Tith of the remainder to the Levites then another Tith of the remainder to be spent in sacrificing at Jerusalem that is for the most part upon the Priests and Levites to whom and to the poor it wholly belonged every third year Deut. XIV 22 28. Ex. XXIII 19. XXXIV 20. Adde hereunto the first-born all sinne-offerings and the Priests part of peace-offerings the skins of Sacrifices which alone Philo makes a chief part of their revenue all consecrations and the Levites Cities and it will easily appear it could not be so little as a fift part of the fruit of the land that came to their share Now that any rate should be determined by the Gospel agrees not with the difference between it and the Law This constraining obedience by fear commands under penalty of vengeance from heaven to pay somuch That perswading men first freely to give themselves to God cannot doubt that they which doe so will freely part with their goods for his service And therefore if the perpetuall practice of Christians must limit the sense of those Laws which the Scripture limits not we see the first Christians at Jerusalem farre outdoe any thing that ever was done under the Law and we see that all Christian people in all succeeding ages have done what the Church now requires but to be continued To this originall Title accrues another by Consecration which is an act of man inforced by the Law of God There is in the Law of Moses one kinde of Ceremoniall Holinesse proper to persons consisting in a distance from things not really unclean but as signs of reall uncleannesse As from meats and drinks and touching creatures men and women in some diseases of which our Lord hath said that what goeth into the mouth polluteth not much lesse what a man onely toucheth and so hath shewed that all this ceaseth under the Gospel But there is another kinde of Holinesse belonging to Times and Places as well as Persons commanded in the Law upon a reason common to the Gospel when it is said Lev. XIX 30. Observe my Sabbaths and reverence my Sanctuaries For did this belong onely to the Temple or Tabernacle instituted by Gods expresse command for that ceremoniall service of God which was unlawfull any where else it might seem to be proper to the ceremoniall Law and to vanish with the Gospel But the perpetuall practice of that people shews that hereby they are commanded to use reverence in their Synagogues which were neither instituted by any written precept of the Law nor for the ceremoniall service of God which was confined to the Temple but for publick Assemblies to hear the Law read and expounded and to offer the Prayers of the people to God For in the Psalms of Asaph which is the only mention of Synagogues in the Old Testament they are called not onely Houses and Assemblies of God but also Sanctuaries as here Ps LXXIII 17. LXXIV 4 7 8. LXXXIV 13. And the Talmud Doctors related by Maimoni extend this Precept to them shewing at large the reverence which they required whereupon Philo in his Book De Legatione ad Caium cals them places of secondary Holinesse to wit in respect of the Temple And in Maimoni in the Title of Praier and the Priests Blessing cap. XI you have at large of the Holinesse of Synagogues and Schools which they esteem more Holy then Synagogues They may have joy of their Doctrine that endeavour to shew that the Jews Synagogues were not counted Holy Places because in the Gospels as well as in Eusebius Histories IV. 16. where he allegeth out of a certain ancient writing against the Montanists that none of them was ever scourged by the Jews in their Synagogues and Epiphanius against the Ebionites it appears that the Jews used to punish by scourging in their Synagogues For it hath taken so good effect as to turn Churches to Stables But he that understands their reason right will inferre the contradictory of their conclusion from it For because Synagogues were the places where matters of Gods Law were sentenced as I shewed afore therefore was that sentence to be executed in Synagogues The like reason there is for the Holinesse of Persons consecrate
onely mark to discern what is the subject of Reformation and what not All Warre made upon the Title of Christianity is unjust and destructive to it Therefore Religion cannot be Reformed by force Of the present State of Christianity among us and the means that is left us to recover the Vnity of the Church THat which hath been said as it concerns the present case of this Church seems to be liable to one main Objection which is this That if the power of Bishops and Presbyters be such as hath been said by Divine Right that nothing can be done without them in their respective Churches it will follow that in case the State of the Church be corrupt by processe of time and their default especially so that the common good of the Church require Reformation by changing of Laws in force if they consent not it cannot be brought to passe without breach of Divine Right This may well seem to be the false light that hath misguided well affected persons to seek the Reformation presently pretended For seeing it is agreed upon among us that there was a time and a State of the Church which required Reformation and that if the Clergy of that time had been supported in that power which by the premises is challenged on behalfe of the Clergy this Reformation could not have been brought to passe It seems therefore to the most part of men that distinguish not between causes and pretenses that where Reformation is pretended there the power lawfully in force to the Society of the Church ought to cease that the Reformation may proceed either by Secular power or if that consent not by force of the People To strengthen this objection as to the Reformation of this Church it may further be said that though it is true that the Order of Bishops hath been propagated in this Church at and since the Reformation by Ordinations made according to the form of that Apostolicall Canon That a Bishop be Ordained by two or three Bishops yet if we judge of the Originall intent of that Canon by the generall practice of the Church it will appear that it is but the abridgement of the IV Canon of the Councell of Nice which requireth that all Bishops be Ordained by a Councell of the Bishops of the Province Which because it cannot always be had therefore it is provided that two or three may doe the work the rest consenting and authorizing the proceeding A thing which seems necessarily true by that which hath been said of the dependence of Churches consisting in this that the Act of part of the Church obliges the whole because that part which it concerns and the Unity of the whole which it produceth stands first obliged by it being done according to the Laws of the whole By which reason the Act of Ordination of a Bishop obliges the whole Church to take him for a Bishop because the Mother Church to which he belongs and the rest of Cathedrall Churches under the same do acknowledge it And this is that which the Ordinance of the Apostles hath provided to keep the Visible Communion of the whole Church in Unity To which it is requisite that a Christian communicate with the whole Church as a Christian a Bishop Presbyter or Deacon as such But when among the Bishops of any Province part consent to Ordinations part not the Unity of the Church cannot be preserved unlesse the consent of the whole follow the consent of the greater part And therefore though the Canon of Nice be no part of Divine Right yet seeing the precept of the Unity of the Church being the end which all the Positive Laws of Church Government aim at obligeth before any Positive precept of the Government thereof which we see are many ways dispensed with for preservation thereof and that it appears to be the generall custome of the Primitive Church to make Ordinations at those Provinciall Councels which by another Apostolicall Canon XXXVIII were to be held twice a year it seemeth that there can no valid Ordination be made where the greater number of the Bishops of the Province dissent Which is confirmed by the Ordination of Novatianus for Bishop of Rome which though done by three Bishops as the Letter of Cornelius to the Eastern Bishops recorded by Eusebius Eccles Hist VI. 43. testifieth yet was the foundation of that great Schisme because Cornelius was Ordained on the other side by sixteen as we reade in S. Cyprian Now it is manifest that the Ordinations by which that Order is propagated in England at and since the Reformation were not made by consent of the greater part of Bishops of each Province but against their minde though they made no contrary Ordinations And by the same means it is manifest that all those Ecclesiasticall Laws by which the Reformation was established in England were not made by a consent capable to oblige the Church if we set aside the Secular Power that gave force unto that which was done contrary to that Rule wherein the Unity of the Church consisteth But in other parts the Reformation established was so far from being done by Bishops and Presbyters or any consent able to conclude the Church by the Constitution of the Church that the very Order of Bishops is laid aside and forgot if not worse that is detested among them Upon which precedent it sounds plansibly with the greatest part among us that the Unity of the whole being dissolved by the Reformation the Unity of the Reformation cannot be preserved but by dissolving the Order of Bishops among us Before I come to resolve this difficulty it will be requisite to examine what Privileges and Penalties the Secular Power is enabled to enforce Religion within a Christian State Because it hath been part of the dispute of this time that some Privileges of the Church are contrary to Christianity as also some Penalties upon matter of Conscience And the resolution of it will make way to my answer Now the resolution hereof must come from the ground laid from the beginning of this Discourse that Christianity importeth no temporall Privilege or advantage of this present World and therefore that Christianity enableth no man to advance and propagate his Christianity by force For as it is contrary to the nature thereof to bee forced seeing the Service of God which it requireth is not performed by any man that is not willing to doe it nor the Faith beleeved but by them that are willing to beleeve it So seeing it gives no man any privilege of this world which he cannot challenge by a lawfull title of Humane Right and that no title of Humane Right can enable any man to impose upon another that Faith which Humane reason reveals not therefore can no Humane power force any man to be a Christian by the utmost penalty of death which is that which force endeth in to them that submit not It is true the Law of Moses imposeth death for a penalty in
it themselves afore Especially if we suppose them to receive the same Power to be exercised by the same Laws which those that received it from the Apostles themselves had and acknowledged from the beginning The consequence of all this is plain enough The resolution of Gulielmus Antissiodorensis among the Schoole Doctors is well known and approved That the Order of Bishops in case of necessity may be propagated by Presbyters supposing that they never received Power to do such an Act from them that had it My reason makes me bold to resolve further that in the case which is put Christian people may appoint themselves Bishops Presbyters and Deacons provided it be with such limits of Power to be exercised under such Laws as are appointed before by our Lord and his Apostles And that upon these terms they ought to be acknowledged by the rest of the Church whensoever there is opportunity of communicating with the same provided that they and their Churches submit to such further Laws as the rest of the Church hath provided for the further regulating of it self according as the part is to submit to the determination of the whole And that this acknowledgement of them would be effectuall in stead of solemne Ordination by Imposition of Hands of persons endowed with that Power which is intended to be conveyed by the same Whereby I make not personall succession to be no Precept of God which if it were not then no Schism were necessarily a Sin and by consequence all that can be said of the Society of the Church would be a Fable but commanded in Order to another of living in the Society of a Church and therefore not binding when both are not possible but the Chief is Beside this main reason included in my resolution drawn from the Rank of Precepts given by God as these are the same may be concluded by this consequence That whosoever will consider how many Ordinances instituted by the Apostles have been either totally abolished or very much changed by the necessity of time rendring them uselesse to the succeeding condition of the Church will not marvell to see their authority maintained in the rest of the Laws wherewith they have regulated the Church without perpetuall succession where it cannot be had though otherwise not to be abolished without sacrilege How far this was the case of those whom I speak of I will not undertake It seems they could not have this authority propagated by them that then had it not consenting to those Apostolical Laws which as it is agreed among us were necessarily to be restored in the Church It seems also that authority was not altogether wanting to the authors of such reformations being still of some Order in the Church For Presbyters though they succeed not the Apostles in the Chief authority established by them in all Churches yet their office was from the beginning to assist them in the government of those Churches whereof they were made Presbyters not by way of execution of their commands onely as Deacons but by exercising the same power where they could not discharge it themselves though with dependence on them in all matters not determined afore Here was some degree of necessity to bar the personall Succession of the Apostles But no necessity can be alleged why they erected not Bishops Presbyters and Deacons over themselves with such limits of Power as the Apostles from the beginning determined seeing it is manifest that the superiority of them was generally thought to come from the corruption of the Papacy not from the institution of the Apostles And therefore cannot be excused by necessity because they did not finde themselves in necessity but by their own false perswasion created it to themselves Which notwithstanding seeing they professe all that is necessary to the salvation of all Christians either in point of Faith or Manners seeing as to the publick Order of the Church they intended and desired and sought to restore that which to their best understanding came from the institution of our Lord and his Apostles they cannot easily be condemned to have forfeited the being of a Church out of which there is no salvation by this or other mistakes of like consequence of them that consider the abuses from whence they departed For the Church is necessarily a Humane though no Civile Society which we are commanded by God in the first place to entertain And as there is no Society of men wherein a particular member can prevail to settle such Laws and such Order as are properest to the end of it so must he live and die out of Communion with the Church that staies till he finde a Church that maintains all that was instituted by our Lord and his Apostles Wherefore though that which they have done contrary to the Apostles order cannot be justified yet there is a reasonable presumption that God excuses it being no part of that which he hath commanded all to beleeve to salvation or which he hath commanded particular men to doe Because the publick order of the Church is commanded particular persons as members of the Church which cannot be done without consent of the whole that is of them that are able to conclude it But if any Secular Power upon earth shall presume to erect this Ecclesiasticall Power by taking it away from them that lawfully have it that is by an Act of those that have the Power before done by virtue of some Humane Law which Act the Law of God doth not make void and giving it to those that have it not by any such Act And that upon another ground then that which hath been specified of bringing back into force and use such Laws of our Lord and his Apostles as have by neglect of time been abolished and brought out of use this Power whatsoever it is shall not fail in so doing to incurre the Crime of Schism and all that concurre or consent to the bringing of such an Act into effect shall necessarily incurre the same Much more if it be done with a further intent by the means of persons thus invested with Ecclesiasticall Power to introduce Laws contrary to the institution of our Lord and his Apostles But though it is possible to imagine a case in which the consent of Christians may erect an Ecclesiasticall authority over themselves by means whereof they may live in the Society of a Church yet there is no manner of case imaginable in which any people or any power but the Soveraign can establish or maintain the exercise of Religion in any thing which they conceive never so necessary to Christianity by the power of the Sword which is the force of the Seculararm The reason is peremptory because the profession of Christ his Crosse is essentiall to Christianity or rather the whole substance and marrow of it For if it were lawfull for any persons whatsoever to defend themselves by force upon no other title but for the maintenance of themselves in the
would be possible that War might be made upon the Title of Religion alone contrary to the Premises The learned Casaubon once called the Doctrine of Gregory the VII Pope when he undertook to deprive Christian Princes of their Estates because they stood Excommunicate Haeresim Hildebrandinam The Heresie of Pope Hildebrand And not without cause For seeing the foundation of Christianity consisteth in things to be done as well as things to be beleeved and that the summe of that which Christians professe to do consists in bearing Christs Crosse how shall he be other then an Heretick that renounceth the profession of Christs Crosse Or how can he be understood to professe Christs Crosse that holds any thing purchased by the Arms which are born upon the Title of Christianity For as all is his that conquers in lawfull Arms so cannot he be understood to renounce all for Christs Crosse that holds any thing by it which he is bound to maintain with the Title whereby he holds it Thus that Pope is not unjustly called an Heretick by some as Heresie imports a vice of a particular mans minde not a Sect in the Society of the Church seeing it cannot be said that this position is enjoined though suffered in the Church of Rome as it must be said of that Church the Society whereof and the Power which governeth that Society subsisteth by Arms grounded on Christianity Therefore supposing an Ecclesiasticall Power and by consequence a Church constituted by force used upon this ground it would be hard to clear it of Heresie the constitution whereof cannot stand with the profession of Christs Crosse But not to aggravate consequences seeing it is manifest that all errors in Religion overthrow the foundation by consequence but to shew what regret I have to say that which I must not conceal I will advance the onely possible expedient that I can imagine to restore the Unity of the Church among us For that of a Nationall Synod which is most obvious and plausible seems to me unpossible to be used lawfully and effectually both in our case I am not so faintly in love with the Cause which I expose my self to so much offense to maintain as to make a question how the Church of England were to be re-established if right might take place that is by re-estating the Synod thereof in full possession of that right which hereby I have proved that they are outed of onely by force But I speak now upon supposition that there is force on their side that refuse this right upon opinions contrary to the same and with an intent to advance a course by which it may be discerned how farre the Church of England may abate of the right which is denied onely by force for so good a purpose as to reconcile unto it those who may otherwise fall into Churches in name but Schisms indeed And in this case my reason is because those who chalenge the right of a Synod must proceed as authorized to judge between or rather to give Law to all parties Now being divided as we are between Right and force or the opinion of either or both it is not imaginable that either those that think themselves to have Right can or those that think themselves to have force will submit to receive sentence or Law from their adversaries unlesse we think them either no men to change their judgement when they come to have Power on their side or no Christians to acknowledge that to be Right which they are assured is not What remains then to restore peace when no party can yeeld Surely in all bodily diseases those parts and principles and elements of nature which remain untainted must be the means to recover the whole And in this distemper of the Church so much of Christianity as remains commonly acknowledged by all parties rightly husbanded may serve to reunite them in one upon better intelligence And the despair which any party ought to have of reducing the rest to themselves ought to perswade all to condescend to this good husbandry What remains then common to all parts beside the profession of Christianity the Scriptures to agree them about the meaning and consequences of them in matters questionable being that which remains in debate Could I say that all parts acknowledged that which the Church from the beginning every where hath received and used to be agreeable to the Scripture I should think the businesse half done But since it is otherwise we must have recourse to a more remote ground or principle which may serve for a reason to produce those consequences which follow from the said Rule in matters in debate seeing we pretend not to make a Rule without cause And this must be by examining the first motives of Christianity for what reasons we undertake the profession of it which being well rendred and shot home to the mark will not fail either to decide any thing in controversie or to shew that it concerns no mans Christianity that it be decided Now the onely means to bring forth and discharge these reasons to publick satisfaction is an open and free Conference for space of time or persons executed by persons advanced by the severall parties to improve what any man can bring forth to the clearing of any thing in debate and managed by persons chosen for their discretion to keep the debate from wandring till all be said to all points For seeing it must needs appear what are the terms of agreement when all reasons are spent it will be lawfull for those in whom rests the Succession of the Apostles and all claiming under them to consent to estate the Ecclesiasticall Power and the Ministery of Ecclesiasticall Offices upon persons to be agreed upon according to terms agreed And this consent as effectuall to reunite the Church as ever anciently Schisms were lawfully restored to the Church by admitting Bishops Presbyters Deacons and People to communicate in their own ranks and making good all acts done in Separation by subsequent consent not as to God but as to the Church which I have shewed afore was many times done As for those which have used this Power already they shall condescend no further by this agreement but to use that part of it which shall be limited them by the agreement upon an unquestionable title for the future But if our sins be still so powerfull as not to suffer a lawfull course to take place let me admonish those infinite numbers of Christian souls that sigh and groan after the Unity of the Church what means God shews them to discharge the conscience of good Christians to him while the temporall Laws of the State which ought to actuate it doe suspend their Office Which are in effect the persons of those in whom the Succession of the Apostles is vested and the Clergy claiming under them And that generall Law of Christianity for which those things which we insist upon cannot be quitted of sticking to all that
Provinces as having Commission to conclude them in which case they must needs be considerable according to the Provinces for which they stood So in all things which may concern the Whole not onely every mans rank of Bishop Presbyter or Deacon is to be considered but also the eminence of the Church in which he bears the same So that by this reason nothing hinders a Presbyter of some chief Church to be of more consideration to the Whole then a Bishop of some mean Church such as we spoke of in Africk And therefore it would be inconsequent that the determinations of Synods should passe indifferently by the Votes of Bishops unlesse we suppose that consideration is had of the chief Churches and this consideration answered in the eminence of that respect which the Bishops of those chief Churches enjoy inswaying the determinations of those Synods to which they concur And this consideration might perhaps have served to take off part of S. Hieromes displeasure against Bishops grounded upon the Power which their Deacons had by their means above Presbyters which he in regard of the great difference between the two degrees in generall thinks to be so great an inconvenience Epist LXXXV ad Euagrium For though it is most true in regard of the Presbyters and Deacons of the same Church that it was a disorder that Deacons in regard of their neernesse to the Bishops should take upon them above Presbyters yet if we compare the Deacon of a chief Church with the Presbyter of a small country Parish no man can say that he is of lesse consideration to the Whole Church in regard of his rank unlesse he mean to make Steven or Philip Titus or Timothy or any of those that waited on the Apostles in person and were properly their Deacons as I have said in assisting them to preach the Gospel where they came to be meaner persons in the Church then one of those Presbyters which Paul and Barnabas Titus or Timothy Ordained in the Churches of those Cities where they came To that which I say p. 92. to prove that the word Angel in the Epistle to the VII Churches Apoc. II III. being an obvious and proper metaphor to signifie a Bishop or Presbyter cannot therefore be used to signifie a College of Presbyters the word being no collective nor any construction inforcing it to be used for a collective in all that Epistle I adde here the comparison of two passages by which it may be gathered for what reason and in what consideration the Spirit speaketh to the Body of those Churches in the Epistle directed to the Angels of them and by consequence who those Angels are The first is that of S. Paul to Titus II. 10. A man that is an Heretick after the first and second admonition avoid For is it S. Pauls purpose to command that onely Titus avoid those whom he should declare Hereticks Surely that would be to no great effect unlesse we understand that by virtue of this precept both Titus is enabled to charge the Churches under him to avoid them and they thereupon obliged to doe it The other is the Epistle under the name of Ignatius to Polycarpus wherein after such advise as he thought fit for Polycarpus without turning his speech from him to another person he proceeds to exhort his people with such instructions as he found to bee most requisite Which feems to be the reason why many count that Epistle counterfeit and none of Ignatius his own though for my part I confesse I am not yet perswaded to think so not onely because of the character both of the matter and language of it which seemeth to me to carry the stamp of Apostolicall upon it as the rest of Ignatius but also particularly because of the example of this Epistle of S. John to the VII Churches wherein it is plain he involves both Pastor and flock in the same praises reproofs advises and exhortations the reasons being the same in both because both sent to be read to the People in the Church as the Epistle to the Colossians and the Laodiceans Coloss IV. 15. and as the Epistle of Clemens to the Corinthians Eusebius says was wont to be read in that Church in his time Now if the instructions concerning the people be addressed to Titus and Polycarp is it not because of some eminence of authority in them by which they might be brought into effect among their people How much more that which is addressed unto the Angels of VII Churches being a style apt to signifie a person of eminent authority over others but never used to signifie a Body of persons much lesse with parallel authority among themselves It is commonly conceived that the Souls under the Altar which we reade of Apoc. VI. 10. were seen by S. John lying under the Altar of Burnt Sacrifices at the foot whereof the rest of the blood that was not sprinkled on the Altar was poured out and the blood being the life or Soul of living creatures in the language of the Scriptures that therefore the souls of those that were slain for the profession of Christianity are seen by S. John under the Altar Against this apprehension I allege p. 95. that it is not the Altar of burnt Sacrifices but the Altar of Incense within the Tabernacle but without the Vail which is represented in these Visions correspondent to the Primitive fashion of Churches where the Communion Table called also the Altar because of the Sacrifice of the Crosse represented upon it stood in the midst of that compasse which the Seats of the Bishop and Priests did enclose For though in the Temple the people prayed without the Sanctuary the Priest whose Office it was at the same time offering Incense with their Prayers yet in the Church where all the people are within the Sanctuary as Priests the XXIV Presbyters are described with golden Vials full of Incense which is the peoples prayers as David saith Let my prayer be set forth in thy presence as the Incense Apoc. V. 8. and besides the Angel puts Incense upon his Censer to the prayers of the Saints Apoc. VIII 3. therefore his fire is from the Altar of Incense within the Tabernacle though without the Vail Besides it is not imaginable how the souls of those that were slain could appear to S. John in Vision of Prophesie lying under the Altar of Burnt Sacrifices where the bloud of Sacrifices was poured out and that in such a multitude as we know there was of the Primitive Martyrs Especially seeing the circumstances of the Text inforces that they are the same Souls which first cry for vengeance and have long white Robes given them because they are not presently satisfied Apoc. VI. 9 10 11. and which are afterwards described standing and praising God in the white Robes that were given them afore Apoc. VII 9. And therefore when they are said to be seen 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the meaning is not that they were seen lying
under the Altar of Burnt Sacrifices but standing in the lower part of the Sanctuary beneath the Altar of Incense Unlesse we take 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 here for the Sanctuary as I shew that it is taken in the Apocalypse p. 115. and then 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The name of Ministers when it answers the Greek 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the Scriptures if it be put absolutely without any addition signifies the Rank and Office of those that are ever since called Deacons in the Church But many times it is put with the additions here mentioned p. 99. of Ministers of the Word Ministers of the Gospel of the New Testament of the Church which serve as circumlocutions and descriptions of the Office of Apostles to the whole Church or their Deputies and Commissioners the Evangelists as when S. Paul writes to the Colossians I. 23 25. that he was made a Minister of the Gospel or of the Church according to the dispensation of God which is given me towards you to fulfill the Word of God that is the Mystery that hath been hidden from generations and ages and now is manifested to his Saints It is here manifest that he cals himself a Minister of God or of the Church in regard of publishing the Gospel and planting the Church which belongs not to the Presbyters of Churches whose name and office is respective to their particular Churches And this notion of the word is almost always to be gathered by the text and consequence of those passages where it is found Therfore the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 when it is absolutely put 1 Tim. III. 8 stands in relation to Bishops and Presbyters mentioned afore in the notion of Waiting upon them whereas when it is put with the addition here specified it stands in relation to God making as much difference between Ministers of the Word and barely Ministers as between executing the immediate commands of God as Apostles doe and executing the commands of Bishops in regard of whom mentioned afore they are called barely and without any addition 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Ministers in that place And so the VII at Jerusalem were first constituted to wait upon the Apostles by doing that Service which they did themselves at the first for the Church whereupon it was afterwards a custome in the Church that there should be VII Deacons in every Church as there were at Jerusalem Concil Neocaesar Can. XIV And therefore the Author of the Questions of the Old and New Testament in S. Augustines Works Q. CI. having observed that the Apostles call Presbyters their fellow Presbyters addeth Nunquid Ministros condiaconos suos diceret Apostolus Non utique quia multo inferiores sunt Et turpe est judicem dicere primicerium Would the Apostle call Deacons his fellow Deacons Surely no for they are much inferiour And it is absurd to call a Pronotary a Judge Where he makes the same difference between Presbyters and Deacons as Christian between Judges and Ministers of Courts and that according to the Originall custome of the Synagogue as well as of the Church as by and by it shall appeare Notwithstanding the Office of Bishops is called a Ministery very anciently by Pope Pius in his Epistle to Justus of Vienna as also the Office both of Bishops Presbyters and Deacons Concil Eliber Can. XIX but in another notion in opposition to the coactive power of the World as proceeding originally not by constraint but by consent and so they are called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and their office 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in Greek because their office is for the behoof of the people and in their stead But they cannot therefore be called Ministers of the People as Deacons are Ministers of Bishops and Presbyters because then they should be ruled by the people and execute that which they prescribe as the Apostles being Ministers of God in Preaching the Gospel are bound to execute his Commission and nothing else which the Clergy of Christian Churches may not doe That it may be beyond any Power upon earth to abolish the Order of Bishops out of the Church of England without abolishing the Church also as is said here p. 129. I prove Chap. V. to wit that no Secular Power can take away Ecclesiasticall Power from them that lawfully have it according to the institution of the Apostles though not by virtue of it To shew that in the judgement and practise of the Primitive Church all Power of baptizing was derived from the Bishop as is said here p. 136. we have but to remember the custome of the Church mentioned in so many Canons of sending the Chrism to all Parish Churches from the Mother Church once a year By which Ceremony it appeared that the Bishop trusted his authority of admitting to the Church by Baptism with the respective Pastors of the same And therefore it is not unreasonably judged that this custome of Chrisming was many times in stead of Confirmation to those Churches that used it Besides in that from the beginning no Ecclesiasticall office was to be ministred by any but the Bishop in his presence the dependence of all Ecclesiasticall authority whereby the same are ministred upon the Bishop is evidenced to us Thus in the passage of Eusebius concerning Origens Preaching before he was of the Clergy mentioned p. 106. it is further to be observed that the instances there alleged seem to shew that the Primitive Bishops did many times admit those that were of no degree in the Clergy to preach in their own presence Which that it was a further privilege then onely to preach may appear by that which is related out of the life of S. Augustine in the Primitive government of Churches p. 113. that he was imploied by the Bishop his predecessor to preach to the people in his presence and stead because he had seen it so practised in the East though in those parts it were not done In like manner it is manifest by many Records of the Church that none might Baptize Celebrate the Eucharist or reconcile the Penitent in the Bishops presence but himself for of Confirmation and Ordaining I need say nothing The fourth reason against the vulgar reading of the XIII Canon of the Councell at Ancyra p. 141. will be more clearly understood by setting down the effect of the LVI Canon of Laodicea which comming after that of Ancyra and taking Order that for the future there should be no Country Bishops made any more provides further that those which were already constituted should do nothing without the consent of the Bishop as likewise the Presbyters to doe nothing without the same Which being the provision which the latter Canon establisheth leaveth it very probable that the other going afore and intending to take order in the same particulars should consist of two clauses correspondent to the same That there were other Churches and Bishops
in Aegypt besides that of Alexandria before the time of Demetrius besides that which hath been said p. 142 143. stands more probable by the Emperour Adrians Epistle related by Vopiscus in the life of Saturninus Illi qui Serapin colunt Christiani sunt Et devoti sunt Serapi qui se Christi Episcopos dicunt Nemo illic Archisynagogus Judaeorum nemo Samarites nemo Christianorum Presbyter non mathematicus non aruspex non aliptes Here he names Bishops at Alexandria to wit such as resorted thither from other Cities of Aegypt And though a man would be so contentious as to stand in it that the name Episcopus might then be common to Bishops and Presbyters both yet when he speaks of Presbyter Christianorum in the very next words he cannot reasonably be thought to speak of Presbyters in those that went afore And when Tertullian saith that Valentine the Father of the Valentinians expected to have been made a Bishop for his wit and eloquence and because he failed of it applied his minde to make a Sect apart whereof himself might be the Head adversus Valentin cap. IV. unlesse we suppose more Bishops then one in Aegypt at that time we tie our selves to say that he would have been Bishop of Alexandria Which had it been so Tertullian probably would have expressed for the eminence of the Place The correspondence between the Office of Deacons in the Synagogue and the Church mentioned p. 156. may thus appear Judges and Officers shalt thou appoint thee in all thy Gates that is in all thy Cities saith the Law Deut. XVI 18. joyning together Judges and Officers in divers other places Num. XI 16. Deut. I. 15 16. These Officers the Greek translateth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and sometime 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Vulgar Latine Doctores for what reason I doe not see that any man hath declared By the Talmud Doctors they are called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which seems to import Appparitores Synagogae which Maimoni describes to be young men that have not attained the years and knowledge of Doctors And the punishment of scourging he saith was executed by these He reporteth also an old saying of their Talmud Doctors that the reason why Samuels sons would not ride circuit as their Father did was because they would inflame the Fees of their 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is their Ministers or Apparitors and Scribes or Clerks And Buxtorfe in the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 reports another of their sayings That at the time of the destruction of Jerusalem the Wise were imbased to the learning of Apparitors and Apparitors to that of Clerks So then they were next under their Wise men or Doctors but above Scribes or Clerks by this account But seeing there was no more difference between them it is no marvell if sometimes it be not considered Maimoni in the Title of learning the Law sheweth that the Jews had every where Schoolmasters appointed to teach yong children to read of the condition of whom he writeth there at large cap. III. these are they whom the Vulgar Latine meaneth by Doctores as appears by the supposed S. Ambrose upon 1 Cor. XII 25. who would have those whom S. Paul there cals Doctors to be the very same And therefore they are the very same that the LXX meant by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Jews say that they were of the Tribe of Simeon and that so the Prophesie of Jacob was fulfilled Divide them in Jacob and scatter them in Israel the Levites being dispersed throughout all the Tribes to take Tiths at the barn door and the Simeonites to teach to write and reade S. Hierome Tradit Heb. in Genesin Jarchi in Gen. XLIX 7. And indeed the name by which the Scripture calleth them 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 though the Originall of it be not found in the Scriptures as how should any language be all found in so small a Volume yet in the Jews writings and also in the Syriack Testament the word from whence it is derived signifieth contracts as Coloss II. 14. So that by their name they must be such as write contracts that is Clerks or Notaries Therefore if the Judges and Doctors of the Jews Consistories are correspondent to the Presbyters of Christian Churches which by many arguments hath been declared then the Apparitors and Notaries of the same must by consequence be answerable to our Deacons And so Epiphanius in the Heresie of the Ebionites maketh the Bishops Presbyters and Deacons of the Christians to be the same that among the Jews were called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is Rulers of Synagogues Presbyters and Deacons For as the Deacons were wont to minister a great part of the Service in the Church so still the Service in the Synagogue is performed by him whom still they call 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Minister of the Synagogue To this III Chapter I must adde two considerations The one is of the scope of that little Piece of the Right of the People in the Church which the learned Blondell hath lately added to Grotius his Book De Imperio Summarum Patestatum in Sacris Which is in brief to derive the right and Title of Lay Elders from the people and from that Interesse which by the Scriptures it appears that they had from the beginning under the Apostles in Church matters Whereby he hath given us cause to cry aloud Victory as quitting the reason and ground upon which the bringing of Lay Elders into the Church was first defended and is hitherto maintained among us to wit that onely Text of 1 Tim. V. 17. Let the Elders that rule well be counted worthy of double Honour especially those that labour in the Word and Doctrine For this Scripture being abandoned the rest that are pretended are so far from concluding that they cannot stand by themselves Now that this Text cannot be effectuall to prove that purpose he argueth there upon the same reason which here I have advanced p. 123. to wit because the same Honour that is maintenance is thereby allowed to those that labour in the Word and Doctrine and those that doe not Whereupon it must needs appear to him that knows a great deal lesse of the Antiquity of the Church then Blondell does that they are Clergy men whose maintenance is provided for by the Apostle Now to comply with him that hath so ingenuously yeelded us the Fort I doe avow that he hath reason to beleeve that there being so great difference between the State of the Church since whole Nations professe Christianity and that which was under the Apostles and the confusion appearing so endlesse and unavoidable that must needs arise in Church matters by acquainting all the People with the proceeding of them and expecting their satisfaction and consent in the same it cannot be contrary to Gods Law to delegate the Interesse of the People to some of the discreetest and most pious of them chosen by them to concur in
their Right For in this quality doe those Elders of the People of which Justellus writeth act in Ecclesiasticall matters as you may see by that which I have said in the Apostolicall Form of Divine Service p. 96. and in all other the particulars which he allegeth And if this be it which the Presbyterians demand in behalf of their Lay Elders let them first accord themselves with those of the Congregations concerning the due Interesse of the People in Church matters and my opinion shall be that the Church may safely joyn issue with them not to yeeld a double number of Votes to Lay Elders in the proceeding of all Church matters as the Ordinance for establishing the Presbyteries appoints which is to make the Clergy truly Ministers not of God but of the People but to grant them a right of Intercession in behalf of the People when as the proceeding may be argued to be contrary to Gods Law grounded upon the practice recorded in the Scriptures and continued under the Primitive Church by which the people were satisfied even of the proceedings of the Apostles themselves in Church matters For by this Right and Interesse the Acts of the Church shall not be done by any Vote of the People but the Rule of Christianity and the Constitution of the Church according to Gods Law shall be preserved which are the inheritance of Christian people The second is concerning the different interesse of Clergy and People in judging the causes of Christians before any State professed Christianity supposing that which hath been proved in the first Chapter that our Lord and his Apostles ordain that they goe not forth of the Church to be judged in Heathen Courts upon pain of Excommunication to them that carry them forth For S. Paul seems to appoint that the least esteemed of the Church be constituted Judges in those causes 1 Cor. VI. 4. and therefore not Bishops nor Presbyters nor Deacons which must needs be of most esteem in the Society of the Church but the simplest of the people Which though it must needs be said by way of concession or supposition that is that they should rather appoint such men then carry their Causes to Secular Courts otherwise it were too grosse an inconvenience to imagine that the Apostle commandeth them to appoint the simplest to be their Judges yet seeing the truth of his words requires that the supposition be possible so that it might in some case come to effect it seems that his injunction comes to this that in case the chief of the Church the Clergy were so imploied that they could not attend to judge their controversies within themselves they should make Judges out of the People Which seemeth not sutable to the rest of the Interesse of the Clergy hitherto challenged This difficulty is to be answered by distinguishing as the Romane Laws distinguish between Jurisdiction and Judging though in far lesse matters For Jurisdiction is sometimes described in the Romane Laws to be the Power of appointing a Judge because it was never intended that the Magistrate which was endowed with Jurisdiction should judge all in person but should give execution and force to the sentences of such Judges as himself should appoint So that the advise of the Apostle supposeth indeed that some of the People might be appointed to judge the Causes of Christians within the Church but leaves the Jurisdiction in those hands by whom they should be appointed Judges Which though it be attributed to the Church indistinctly by the Apostle yet seeing by our Lords appointment the sentence was to be executed by Excommunication therefore of necessity the appointing of Judges must proceed upon the same difference of Interesses as it hath been shewed that Excommunication doth And though Saint Paul suppose that there might be cause to have recourse to Lay-men for the sentencing of differences in the Church as indeed the life of S. Peter in the Pontificall Book relateth that he did Ordain or appoint certain persons to attend upon this businesse that himself might be free for more spirituall imploiment which seemeth to be meant of Lay-men constituted Judges yet by the Apostolicall Constitutions we finde that it was usually done by the Clergy II. 47. And Polycarpus in his Epistle to the Philippians exhorting the Presbyters not to be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 rigid in judgement must needs be thought to have respect to this Office And besides many more instances that might be produced of good antiquity in the Church it is manifest that this is the beginning of Bishops Audiences CHAP. IV. THat which is said p. 166. that Christian States have as good right to dispose of matters of Christianity as any State that is not Christian hath to dispose of matters of that Religion which it professeth proceedeth upon that ground of Interesse in matters of Religion which is common to all States to wit that the disposing of matters of Religion is a part of that Right wherein Soveraignty consists in as much as it concerneth all Civile Societies to provide that under pretense of Religion nothing prejudiciall to the publick peace thereof may be done And truly those Religions that come not from God may very well contain things prejudiciall to Civile Society in as much as those unclean Spirits which are the authors of counterfeit Religions doe also take delight in confounding the good order of humane affairs Notwithstanding in regard the obligation which we have to civile Society is more felt and better understood then that which we have to the Service of God therefore those that are seduced from true Religion are neverthelesse by the light of Nature enabled to maintain civile Society against any thing which under pretense of Religion may prove prejudiciall to the same This is then the common ground of the interesse of all States in matters of Religion which Christianity both particularly and expresly establisheth Particularly in as much as they that assure themselves to have received their Religion from the true God must needs rest assured that he who is the author of civile Society doth not require to be worshipped with any judgement or disposition of minde prejudiciall to his own ordinance Which reason because it taketh place also in Judaisme I have therefore as I found occasion endevoured to declare how that containeth nothing prejudiciall to the Law of Nations And expresly in as much as the Gospel addresseth it self to all Nations with this provision that nothing be innovated in the civile State of any upon pretense thereof but that all out of conscience to God submit to maintain that estate wherein they come to be Christians so far as it is not subject to change by some course of humane right For when S. Paul 1 Cor. VII 22 commands all men to serve God in that condition of circumcision or uncircumcision single life or wedlock bondage or freedome wherein they are called to be Christians his meaning is not to say that a slave may not
must needs remain distinct bodies when the Church is ingraffed into the State and the same Christians members of both in regard of the Relations Rights and Obligations which in the same persons remain distinct according to the distinct Societies and qualities of severall persons in the same Therefore as I said in the beginning that no Christian as a Christian can challenge any temporall Right by his Christianity which the State wherein he is called to be a Christian giveth him not So on the other side no man by his rank in any State is invested with any power proceeding from the foundation of the Church as it is the Church So that which is true in the parts holds in the whole The Church is indowed with no temporall Right therefore the State is indowed with no Ecclesiasticall Right though it hath great Right in Ecclesiasticall matters of which in due time For all this Right supposeth the Church already established by that power on which it standeth and so must maintain it upon the same terms which it findeth The homage which the Church paieth to God for the protection of the State is not to betray the Right founded on the expresse Charter of God to Powers subsisting by the works of his mediate Providence But to subdue subjects to that obedience for conscience which the State exacteth by force For there is necessarily this difference between the principles upon which the Church and civill Communities subsist The Charter of the one is revealed by Grace The others stand upon the Laws of Nature and Nations and acts which Providence inables men to doe agreeable to the same Therefore as no State stands by the Gospel so no right setled by the Gospel can belong to any State or person as a member of any State Besides Kingdomes and States have their severall bounds Many Soveraignties are contained in Christendom whereas the Church is by Gods Ordinance one Visible Society of all Christians Now it is manifest first that there are some things which equally concern the whole Church and all parts of it Secondly that in things which concern the whole Church no part thereof in any State or Kingdome can be concluded by that State or Kingdome Again the Apostles Rule is 1 Cor. VII 24. that every man abide in the State wherein he is called to be a Christian And this proves that no Christian can challenge any temporall right by his Christianity because States subsist before they are Christian Therefore it proves also that no State or member of it is by being such endowed with any Right grounded on the constitution of the Church And therefore seeing the Church subsisted three hundreth years before any State professed Christianity whatsoever Rights it used during that time manifestly it ought therefore still to use and enjoy this being the most pertinent evidence to shew the bounds of it In particular as to the Power of the Keys and Excommunication the act of it seeing the intent of it is to admit into the Visible Society of the Church upon presumption that by the right use of it sinne is taken away and the person admitted to the invisible Society of life everlasting and seeing no Common-wealth no quality in any pretendeth to take away sinne or to judge in whom it is taken away it followeth that no man whatsoever by virtue of any rank in any State is qualified to manage this Power or can presume so to doe CHAP. II. That the whole Bodies of Christians contained in severall Cities and the Territories of them make severall Churches depending upon the Churches of greater Cities Therefore the People is not endowed with the Chief Power in any Church HAving seen thus farre upon what Patent the community of the Church is established and the Power thereof founded it will be necessary farther to dispute in what Hands this Power is deposited by the Apostles and what persons are trusted with it Which point before it be voided we can neither determine what Form of Government God hath ordained in his Church nor how it may be exercised in Christian States without crossing the Right which they challenge in Church matters The Presbyterians having designed severall Presbyteries for the Government of severall Congregations that assemble together for the service of God and having cried up this design for the Throne of Christ the new Jerusalem and the Kingdome of God seeing there is no question made that where there is a Presbytery there is a Church and where there is a Church there is the Power of the Keyes which God hath endowed his Church with seem to have given those of the Congregations occasion to inferre that every Congregation that assembles for the common Service of God is by consequence to have the Power of the Keys to excommunicate whereunto adding another principle that the chief Power of every Congregation is in the People it follows that they are all absolute without dependence on the rest of the Church But all this while both run away with a presumption for which they can shew us never a title or syllable of evidence in all the Scriptures For Presbyters and Presbyteries they may shew us in the Scriptures and no grandmercy unlesse they can shew us how to understand them better then they doe But that every congregation that assembles together to serve God in common should have a company of Presbyters for the Government of it is a thing so contrary to all the Intelligence we have concerning the State of the Church either under the Apostles themselves by the Scriptures or any Primitive Records of the Church or in the succeeding ages of the Church that they must demand of all men to renounce common sense and all Faith of Historicall as well as Divine Truth before they can beleeve it Whereas by the same evidence by which the rest of Christianity is conveyed and commended unto us that is by the Scriptures interpreted by the Originall and universall practise of the Church it will appear that the Apostles planting Christianity not onely in those Cities where they preached most because there the harvest was greatest but in the Countries adjoining which by the custome of all civile Nations every where resort to their Cities for Justice designed the severall Bodies of Christians that should be found abiding in severall Cities and the Territories of the same to make severall Churches the Government whereof they planted in those Cities both for themselves and for the Countries that resorted unto them And as in the civile Government of all civile people particular Cities depend upon Mother Cities Heads of Provinces Governments or Soveraignties so the Churches of particular Cities to depend upon the Churches of those Mother Cities that by the union and correspondence of those Churches drawing along with them all the Churches under them the unity of the whole Church consisting of them all might be established and entertained This is the effect of that observation which I advanced in the little
Discourse p. 16. that whereas it is said Acts XIV 23. that Paul and Barnabas ordained Presbyters in every Church S. Paul saith that he left Titus in Crete to ordain Presbyters in every City Tit. I. 5. and again Acts XVI 4. As they passed by the Cities they delivered unto them the decrees determined by the Apostles and Presbyters at Jerusalem The Cities of which he had said before that they ordained Presbyters in every Church planted in those Cities as Titus in every City So nice as this evidence may seem to those that consider not the state of the whole Church when it shall appear to any man as to all that consider with their eyes open it must appear that always every where all congregations of Christians remaining in the Country adjoining to any City made one Church with the Christians of that City common sense will inforce that the Apostles designe was the modell from which this form was copied out in all parts of the Church To which purpose we are to consider in the next place an excellent Observation of that pious learned Prelate the L. Primate of Ireland published in a little Discourse of the Originall of Bishops upon the seven Churches of Asia to which S. Iohn is commanded to direct that Epistle contained in the II III Chapters of the Apocalypse The observation consists in this that the seven Cities wherein those seven Churches are said to be were seven chief Cities or Mother Cities of the Province of Asia whereby it is manifest that the chief Churches upon which inferiour Churches were to depend were planted in the chief Mother Cities to which the Countries about them resorted for Justice For certainly no man will offer such violence to his own common sense as to say that there were at the time of writing this Epistle but seven Congregations of Christians in that Province where S. Paul first and after him S. John had taken such pains And if more Congregations but onely seven Churches for what reason but because many Congregations make but one Church when they are under the City in which that Church is planted There hath been indeed an Objection made from the words of this Epistle when it is said at the end of the addresse to every particular Church He that hath eares to hear let him hear what the Spirit saith to the Churches The addresse beginning always thus To the Church of Ephesus thus saith the Spirit To the Church of Smyrna thus saith the Spirit and so of the rest The objection pretendeth that by these words it appears that there were in Ephesus for example many Churches constituting the Presbytery of that City which is there called the Church of Ephesus For if this were so I would acknowledge that this argument were overthrown and that Churches were not convertible with Cities but that many Churches are here called the Church of Ephesus because the Seat of the Presbytery was at Ephesus according to the Presbyterian Design But this objection both carries with it an answer to discover the mistake upon which it is grounded and draws after in an effectuall argument to choke the opinion which it supports For is not S. John expresly commanded Apoc. I. 11. to write and send one letter to all those seven Churches And can any man be so senslesse as when it is said What the Spirit saith to the Churches to understand severall Churches of Ephesus Smyrna and the rest and not the seven Churches to which the one letter is directed And therefore the argument stands good that in these seven Cities there were but seven Churches and that the letter is directed to these Mother Churches planted in the Mother Cities because inferiour Cities receiving their Christianity from them were to depend upon them for the regulating of all things concerning the exercise of it As the Originall and Universall condition and State of the Church convinces Now the argument which this objection and the answer draws after it is this That in all the New Testament you shall never finde any mention of severall Churches in any City as Rome Ephesus Antiochia Jerusalem But when there is speech of any Province be it never so small you shall finde mention of a plurall number of Churches in it For of the Churches of Asia Syria Cilicia Macedonia Achaia Galatia Judaea and Samaria and of the Hebrews in their dispersions we finde expresse mention upon severall occasions Acts IX 31. VIII 5 40. XV. 41. 1 Cor. XVI 1. 2 Cor. VIII 2. 1 Thessal II. 14. Apoc. I. 11. II. 7 11 17 29. III. 6 13 22. Though Samaria among the rest were a Province of no great extent yet for example you have in that Province the City whereof Simon Magus was called Gittha saith Epiphan Haer. XXI now a Village but in those days a City saith he of which Acts VIII 5. And Philip went down to a City of Samaria not the City as we translate it and Caesarea which Ioseph shews us was in that Province XXI 7. Now tell me what reason can be given for this by any man that will pretend to understand either Scripture or any record of learning but that Churches are convertible with Cities For had there been many Churches within the City of Ephesus for example of parallel power and privilege making up one Classis or Presbytery or whatsoever new name can be given a new thing without the least syllable of example from the Apostles to Calvin must not these have been called the Churches not the Church of Ephesus I come now to a very expresse mark of this dependence during the time and in the actions of the Apostles and therefore by their Order acknowledged not onely by themselves but by all imploied by them in the planting of the Churches And it is the going of Paul and Barnabas to Jerusalem in behalf of the Churches of Syria and Cilicia troubled by some that taught at Antiochia from whence those Churches received their Christianity that Christians are to keep the Law of Moses Acts XIII 1. XV. 1. For were not Paul and Barnabas able to resolve this question at Antiochia Paul especially protesting That he received not the doctrine of the Gospel which he preached from man or by man Gal. I. 1. who is constrained both to the Galatians and elsewhere to oppose his calling as a Bulwark against all that laboured to bring Judaisme into the Church Surely in regard of the thing they were but in regard of authority to the Church they were not Barnabas was imploied by the Apostles to Antiochia who found Christians there but made them a Church by ordering their Assemblies Acts XI 20 24 25 26. And he it was that first brought Saul into that service by his authority from the Apostles Though afterwards both of them were extraordinarily imploied by the Holy Ghost to preach the Gospel and plant Churches Acts XIII 1. All this while the Church could not look upon Saul in the quality and
may finde perhaps larger then it The Rule notwithstanding all this is the same that Cathedrall Churches be founded in Cities though Cities are diversly reckoned in severall Countries nay though perhaps some Countries where the Gospel comes have scarce any thing worth the name of Cities Where the Rule must be executed according to the discretion of men that have it in hand and the condition of times This we may generally observe that Churches were erected in greater number when they were erected without indowment established by temporall Law So that in one of the Africane Canons it is questionable whether a Bishop have many Presbyters under him Fewer still where they were founded by Princes professing Christianity upon temporall endowments And upon this consideration it will be no prejudice to this Rule that in Aegypt till the time of Demetrius there was no Cathedrall Church but that of Alexandria If it be fit to beleeve the late Antiquities of that Church published out of Eutychius because they seem to agree with that which S. Hierome reporteth of that Church As to this day if we beleeve the Jesuites whose relation you may see in Godignus de Rebus Abassinorum I. 32. there is but one for all Prester Johns Dominion or the County of the Abassines For though men would not or could not execute the Rule so as it took place in more civile Countries yet that such a Rule there was is easie to beleeve when we see Christianity suffer as it does in those Countries professing Christ by the neglect of it Before I leave this point I will touch one argument to the whole question drawn from common sense presupposing Historicall truth For they that place the chief power in Congregations or require at all severall Presbyteries for the government of severall Congregations are bound at least to shew us that Congregations were distinguished in the times of the Apostles if they will entitle their design to them Which I utterly deny that they were I doe beleeve the Presbyterians have convinced those of the Congregations that in S. Pauls time the Churches to whom he writes contained such numbers as could by no means assemble at once But severall Churches they could not make being not distinguished into severall Congregations but meeting together from time to time according to opportunity and order given About S. Cyprians time and not afore I finde mention of Congregations setled in the Country For in his XXVIII Epistle you have mention of one Gaius Presbyter Diddensis which was the name of some place near Carthage the Church whereof was under the cure of this Gaius and in the life of Pope Dionysius about this time it is said that he divided the Dioceses into Churches and in Epiphanius against the Manichees speaking of the beginning of them under Probus about this time there is mention of one Trypho Presbyter of Diodoris a Village as it seems by his relation there under Archelaus then Bishop of Caschara in Mesopotamia Likewise in an Epistle of Dionysius of Alexandria reported by Eusebius Eccles Hist VII 24. there is mention of the Presbyters and Teachers of the brethren in the Villages And those Churches of the Country called Mareotes hard by Alexandria which Socrates Eccles Hist I. 27. saith were Parishes of the Church of Alexandria in the time of Constantine must needs be thought to have been established long before that time whereof he writes there After this in the Canons of Ancyra and Neocaesarea and those writings that follow there is oftentimes difference made between City and country Presbyters In Cities this must needs have been begun long afore as we find mention of it at Rome in the life of Pope Cains where it is said that he divided the Titles and Coemiteries among the Presbyters and the distribution of the Wards of Alexandria and the Churches of them mentioned by Epiphanius Haer. LXVIII LXIX seems to have been made long before the time whereof he speaks But when Justin Martyr says expresly Apol. II. that in his time those out of the Country and those in the City assembled in one farre was it from distinguishing setled Congregations under the Apostles Which if it be true the position which I have hitherto proved must needs be admitted that the Christians remaining in severall Cities and the Territories of them were by the Apostles ordered to be divided into severall distinct Bodies and Societies which the Scripture calls Churches and are now known by the name of Cathedrall Churches and the Dioceses of them constituting one whole Church This being proved I shall not much thank any man to quit me the Position upon which the Congregations are grounded to wit the chiefe Power of the people in the Church Though it seems they are not yet agreed themselves what the Power of the people should be Morellus in the French Churches disputed downright that the State of Government in the Church ought to be democratick the people to be Soveraign Wherein by Bezaes Epistles it appears that he was supported by Ramus For the man whom Beza calls 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and describes by other circumlocutions who put the French Churches to the trouble of divers Synods to suppresse this Position as there it appears can be no other then Ramus Perhaps Ramus his credit in our Universities was the first means to bring this conceit in Religion among us For about the time that he was most cried up in them Brown and Barow published it Unlesse it be more probable to fetch it from the troubles of Francford For those that would take upon them to exercise the Power of the Keys in that estate because they were a Congregation that assembled together for the Service of God which power could not stand unlesse recourse might be had to Excommunication did by expresse consequence challenge the publick power of the Church to all Congregations which I have shewed to be otherwise And the contest there related between one of the people and one of the Pastors shews that they grounded themselves upon the Right of the people So true it is that I said afore that the Presbyterians have still held the stirrup to those of the Congregations to put themselves out of the saddle As now the Design of the Congregations is refined they will not have it said that they make the People chief in the Church For they give them power which they will have subject to that Authority which they place in the Pastors Elders which serves not the turn We have an instance against it in the State of Rome after they had driven away the Tarquins They placed Authority in the Senate and Power in the People and I suppose the successe of time shewed that which Bodine disputes against Polybius De Repub. II. 2. to be most true that the State was thereby made a Democraty So the Congregations challenging to themselves Right to make themselves Churches and by consequence whom they please Pastors must needs by
consequence reduce the Authority they pretend to what measure the people shall please whom by their proceedings they inable to make and unmake members and Pastors at their pleasure But I dispute not the consequence of their design before they declare what they are agreed upon in it Besides they conceive they have this Right in the Church because they are Saints as Anabaptists conceive that by the same title they have Right to the Goods of this world and as Christians conceive they have those Rights which they pretend to in the Visible Church by lawfull Ordination and Baptism And that they are Saints they seem to presume upon this ground that they have been admitted to such a Congregation upon Covenant to live in such Society for which they separate from the Church It shall be enough to levell the grounds and reasons from Scripture upon which they have parted from the Church under pretence of recovering the freedom of Saints before they are agreed wherein this freedom consists and how far it extends And truly that which I have hitherto proved seems to be a peremptory prescription against their pretence For if the Apostles ordered the Bodies of severall Churches to consist of the whole numbers of Christians contained in severall Cities and in the Territories of them which no common sense can possibly imagine that they could assemble all together at any time for the service of God it follows of necessity that the power of Governing those Churches was not deposited by the Apostles in the Body of the People whereof those Churches did or should consist For where the Power is in the People there the whole Body of the People must have means to Assemble to take Order in such things as concern the state of it Wherefore the Assemblies of the Church being only for Divine Service and at those Assemblies it being impossible that all the people of those Churches should meet common sense must pronounce that the Power of taking Order in the common affairs of Churches is not deposited by the Apostles in the Body of the People Another exception there is to all or most of the particulars which they alledge out of the scriptures far more peremptory then his For those things upon which they ground the right interess of the people in the Church were done under the Apostles that is not only in their time but also in concurrence with their Right and Power in the Government of the Church So that if we beleeve or if we prove the chief Power to have been then in the Apostles it cannot by the Scriptures which they produce be proved to remain in the People because their evidence cannot prove any greater Power or Right to be now in the People then belonged to them when the Scriptures they allege were said or done under the Apostles Now I suppose I shall not need to intreat any man to grant me that the Soveraign Power of the Church was then in the Apostles which their Commission will easily evince The name of an Apostle seemeth to have been borrowed by our Lord from the ordinary use of that people For in their Law it ordinarily signifieth a mans Proxy or Commissary deputed to some purpose And therefore the signification of it in the Scriptures is very large So that when we reade of Epaphroditus Apostle of the Philippians Phil. II. 25 30. or of Luke and Titus Apostles of the Churches 2 Cor. VIII 19 20 23. we are not to conceive by this name any thing like the Office of the Apostles of Christ For these later are plainly called Apostles of the Churches as deputed by them to carry their Contributions to Jerusalem And Epaphroditus of the Philippians as imploied by them to wait upon and furnish S. Paul with his necessary charges at Rome The power of Christs Apostles then must not be valued by the name of Apostle nor by the person of our Lord Christ that sends them for he might have sent other manner of men upon inferiour errands and all been Apostles But by the work which they are trusted with expressed in their Commission As my Father sent me Whos 's soever sins ye remit and Goe preach and teach all Nations For if God ordain his Church to be one Visible Society to serve him in the Profession of the Gospel and trust onely his Apostles and the Church with the Power of the Keys the root of all Ecclesiasticall Power as hath been said either the Church must challenge it against the Apostles which is not but by them or it must be understood to have been then in the Church because it was in the Apostles in whom it was before the Church which was founded by them whereupon the Office of the Apostles is called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a Bishoprick before the Church was whereof they were Bishops to wit in Judas Acts I. 9. A meaning easie to be read in the number of them For the Church being the spirituall Israel as Israel according to the flesh coming of XII Patriarchs had always XII Princes of their Tribes and LXX Presbyters members of the great Consistory to govern them in the greatest matters concerning the State of the whole People under one King or Judge or under God when they had neither King nor Judge So did our Saviour appoint XII Patriarchs as it were of his spirituall People LXX Governours of another Rank both under the name of Apostles in whom should rest the whole Power of governing that People whereof himself in heaven remains always King A perfect evidence hereof is the deriving of other Power from them as theirs is derived from Christ We reade in the Scriptures of Euangelists and we reade of another sort of Apostles which if we understand not to be of the number of the LXX we must needs conceive to be so called because they were Apostles of the Apostles that is persons sent by the XII Apostles to assist them in the work committed to their trust which it is plain could not be executed by them in person alone And indeed those whom the Scripture cals false Apostles 2 Cor. XI 13. and that said they were Apostles and were not Apoc. II. 2. what can we imagine they were but such as pretended to be imploied by other Apostles perhaps by S. Peter to Corinth who had a hand in the founding of that Church as we learn by Dionysius of Corinth in Eusebius Eccles Histor II. 25. agreeing with the beginning of S. Pauls first Epistle but intended indeed under their names and authorities to pull down that which was built by their fellow Apostles And in this sense perhaps S. Paul calls Andronicus and Junias eminent among the Apostles Rom. XVI 7. because it may be they were imploied by himself or by S. Peter about the Gospel at Rome And hereby we may take measure what Euangelists were For seeing it appears by the Scripture that they were the Apostles Scholars deputed by them and limited to such imploiment as
desired who having white Robes granted them in stead of that present justice which their Prayers sollicited are afterwards described standing with their faces toward the Throne the Lamb and the Elders as the People in the Church at Divine Service towards the Bishop and Presbyters Which particulars too long here to be deduced are easie to be observed by comparing Apoc. V. 8. VI. 9 10 11. VII 12 14. VIII 3 4 5. Adde hereunto the saying of Ignatius that the Bishop in his Church bears the figure of the Father of All to wit in the whole Church Triumphant and unto that the Ordinary expression of the Jews when they use the term of God and his House of Judgement 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is his Court or Consistory to represent the Majesty of God sitting in Counsell or in Judgement upon the World with the Angels about him in the Old Testament but the Saints in the New attended by the Angels Mar. XIX 28. Luc. XXII 30. 1 Cor. VI. 2. Apoc. XX. 4. which expression of theirs is manifestly borrowed from the Scriptures of the old Testament every where representing the Majesty of God in this posture Ps LXXXIX 8. Dan. VII 9. Psal CXLIX 1. Deut. XXXII 2. and you have not onely a Commentary upon this whole passage but also a Confirfirmation of all that hath been or shall be said that the Bishop and Presbyters are the same in the Church as the Sanedrin and the Head of them in the Synagogue All this is yet more fortified by the testimony of Tertullian De Praescript cap. XXXVI that the very Chairs in which the Apostles sate in their Churches were extant in his time as saith he were also the very Originals of their Epistles in the Churches to whom they were sent and as the Chair of S. James at Jerusalem was extant in Eusebius his time Eccles Hist VII 19. Adde further The uppermost Seats in Synagogues which the Scribes and Pharisees desired Luc. XI 43. adde the Apostle 1 Cor. XIV 25 30. distinguishing between the Seats of private persons and Prophets which the supposed S. Ambrose expounds by the Custome of sitting in the Synagogue as I have shewed in the same place adde The Chair of Moses on which the Scribes and Pharisees sate in succession to him who taught the people in that posture with the Priests sitting about him as Philo expoundeth the Text Num. XV. 33. Mat. XXIII 2. and I suppose we have not only evidenced to common sense the Superiority of the Bishop above the Presbyters by his Place in the Church but also the distinction of the Clergy from the People by the same Which Point that I may deduce with that care which the consequence of it requires it will be worth the inquiry first by what title of Right the Celebration and Consecration of the Eucharist belongs only to Presbyters which as it seems to be agreed upon on all sides so let the Reason also once be agreed upon why it belongs only to them and thereby it will appear that it is convertible with the Power of the Keys that is that the Power of the Keys also belongs only to Presbyters whereas the Offices of Preaching and baptizing are communicable to their inferiours and that it belongs also to all Presbyters and so by consequence that there is no such thing as Lay Elders The Presbyterians stiling their Pastors Ministers of the Word and Sacraments in opposition to their Lay Elders seem to ground this Right upon the Commission of our Lord to his Apostles Goe preach and make Disoiples all nations Baptizing them as if this were the Office wherein Presbyters succeed the Apostles though of the Eucharist there is here never a word But if they consider what it is to Preach the Gospel to Unbeleevers or rather what it was before the Gospel was received any where it will easily appear that unlesse they be mad men that go about it it is necessary that they be indowed with abilities to make it appear even to the enemies of the Gospel that they are sent by God to Preach it Therefore no man succeeds the Apostles in the Office of Preaching the Gospel to the Nations And therefore if they will take notice they shall easily observe that the Title of Minister of the Gospel Minister of the Word of the New Testament Minister of the Church and others equivalent are never given to any but the Apostles in the Scriptures unlesse it be to their Scholars and Substitutes the Evangelists because they were to the Apostles as the Apostles to Christ and Christ to God that is they were Ministers of the Apostles assumed by them to the work which Christ had trusted them in Person with of Preaching the Gospel and planting Christianity And therefore when need was were able to make their Commission appear by the works they did though in an inferiour degree because they proceeded upon that stock of reputation which the Apostles had won the Gospel by their Preaching and Miracles Such titles you shall finde attributed to the Apostles and their Followers and Substitutes 1 Cor. III. 5. 2 Cor. III. VI. 4. XI 23. Col. I. 23 25. Eph. III. 7. VI. 21. 1 Thess III. 2. Col. IV. 7. I. 7. Acts I. 17. VI. 4. XX. 24. XXI 19. but no where to Presbyters For the name of Presbyters as also of Bishops is Relative to the People of those Churches whereof they are Bishops and Presbyters signifying them to be the best qualified of all the Body of those Churches chosen and constitute to conduct the rest in Christianity And therefore the Apostles also are Presbyters as S. Peter and S. John style themselves 1 Pet. V. 1. 2 John 1. 3 John 1. because the greater includes the lesse and because they had power in all Churches as Presbyters in one But Presbyters are never called Apostles because the greater is not included in the lesse and because Presbyters never had Commission to preach the Word or the Gospel in the sense whereof I speak here that is to publish the Gospel to Unbeleevers And whereas there is the same difference between 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 on the one part and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 on the other as there is between Publishing the Gospel to Vnbeleevers and instructing Christian Assemblies in it we never finde the former attributed to any Presbyter in the Scriptures but we finde both attributed to the Apostles because their Commission was to Publish the Gospel to all Nations and to make them Disciples by Baptizing them and being such to Teach them further to observe all that our Lord commandeth Mat. XXVIII 19 20. Mar. XVI 15. Thus the Apostles Acts V. 42. ceased not to Teach and Preach Jesus Christ in Houses and in the Temple To Teach the Church in those Houses where the Christians assembled to serve God as Christians and to Preach to the Jews in the Temple whither they resorted for that Service Acts II. 42 46.
we have an Altar that is a Sacrifice of which they that serve the Tabernacle have no right to eat that is no Jews For seeing the Priests only eat the remains of burnt Sacrifices whereas the remains of peace Offerings are eaten also by the Sacrificers that which the Priests touch not it is manifest that no Jew can have right to touch And that the Sacrifice of the Crosse is such he proceedeth to prove because as he had declared in the premises it is of that kinde that was carried within the Vail and again because in correspondence to the burning of the rest of those Sacrifices without the Camp which the Law enjoyned Levit. IV. 12 20. VI. 30. XVI 21. our Lord suffered without Jerusalem Now because it concerned the discourse propounded by the Apostle to shew how Christians participate of that Sacrifice whereof he hath proved that Jews do not he addeth Let us therefore goe forth to him out of the Camp bearing his reproach for we have here no abiding City but seek one to come Let us therefore by him offer the Sacrifice of Praise continually to God even the fruit of our lips giving thanks to his Name Which if we will have to be pertinent to the premises must all be meant of the Eucharist in which the Sacrifice of the Crosse is communicated to Christians Not as if thereby the Apostle did establish that strange prodigious conceit of repeating the Sacrifice of the Crosse and sacrificing Christ anew in every Masse In as much as the Apostle clearly declareth that the same one individuall Sacrifice which Christ carried into the Holy of Holies through the Vail to present to God is that which all Christians participate of in the Eucharist always And therefore the Eucharist is a Sacrifice no otherwise then as all Eucharists that have been or shall be to the worlds end can be understood to be the same one individuall Sacrifice of Christ upon the Crosse Which how it is to be understood this is not the place to dispute Here is further to be remembred that which I have proved in the Apostolicall Form of Divine Service p. 343 373. that it is Ordained by the Apostles which hath been practised by the Church after them in all ages that at the celebration of the Eucharist supplications and prayers be made for all estates and ranks in the Church for all things concerning the common necessities of it The reason and intent whereof is still more manifest by the premises For if the prayers of the Church be accepted of God in consideration of the Sacrifice of the Crosse appearing always before the Throne of God within the Vail to intercede for us Is it not all reason that the Church when it celebrateth the remembrance thereof upon earth should offer and present it to God as the only powerfull means to commend the Prayers of the Church unto God and to obtain our necessities at his hands If these things then be so let us call to minde the Propheticall Vision represented to S. John in the Apocalypse of the Throne of God and of the Church Triumphant divided into XXIV Presbyters sitting about the Throne of God and the people of the Church standing and beholding the Throne and the Elders in the very same manner as they did at the Assemblies of the Church Militant at Divine Service Whereby it is manifest that God granteth the Decrees which are foretold in that Prophecy at the Prayers of the Church Triumphant presented to his Throne in the same manner as the Prayers of the Church Militant here upon earth And upon these premises I suppose it will be no hard thing to make the consequence from that which is said Apoc. IV. 8. The XXIV Elders fell down before the Lamb having every one Harps and golden Vials full of incense which are the Prayers of the Saints The consequence being no more but this that seeing all things else in this Vision are correspondent to the order of the Militant Church therefore it is plain that the Presbyters in the Church Triumphant are said to hold in their hands the Prayers of the Saints because in the Church Militant the Presbyters were to present the Prayers of the Church to God and by consequence to celebrate the Eucharist which the Prayers of the Church were always presented to God with Which is further confirmed in that the Church or the place in Heaven where this Assembly of the Church Triumphant is represented to S. John is called divers times in the Apocalypse 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not in the notion of an Altar which notwithstanding it signifies more then once in this very Prophecy when the Altar of Incense before the Throne is called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Apoc. VI. 9. VIII 3 5. but of a Sanctuary or Place of Sacrificing So Apoc XI 2. Rise measure the Temple of God and the Sanctuary which in the Greek is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 because it follows and those that worship in it For in an Altar no man worships Again Apoc. XIV 18. Another Angel came forth out of the Sanctuary For out of the Altar he could not come and yet it is in the Greek 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Again Apoc XVI 7. And I heard one speak out of the Sanctuary 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 This signification is expounded in H. Stevens Glosses 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Altarium Sacrarium and in those of Philoxenus Sacrarium 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And so it is Translated in the Latine of Polycarpus his Epistle to the Philippians where he cals the Widows 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 As also in that noted passage of Ignatius to the Ephesians 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 where it is manifest that the Church is called a Sanctuary or Place of Sacrificing seeing no man can be said to be without the Altar because not within it Neither is it any marvell that in the representation of the Triumphant Church in this Propheticall Vision by correspondence with the Assembly of the Church upon earth regard is had chiefly to the celebration of the Eucharist Because as it is that part of the Service of God which is altogether peculiar to the Church as the Sacrifice of the Crosse is peculiar to Christianity whereas other Offices of Divine Service Prayer the Praises of God and Teaching of the People are common not only to Judaism but in some sort to other Religions never Ordained by God So is it the Chief and principall part of it though in this Age where so much hath been said of Reforming the Church we hear not a word of restoring the frequent celebration and communion of it It is to be wished indeed that continuall Preaching be maintained in all Churches as it is to be wished that all Gods people were Prophets And it is to be commended that the abuse of private Masses is taken away But if order be not taken that those which are set up to Preach may Preach no more then they have learned
generally distinguishable in the Church the one of Presbyters sometimes called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 1 Tim. V. 17. 1 Thess V. 14. sometimes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Heb. XIII 14 17. somtimes Episcopi 1 Tim. II. 2. Tit. I. 5 7. comprehending Bishop and Presbyters for the reasons alleged for to these the Deacons as their Ministers are to be referred the other of the People The same that in Tertullian are called Ordo Plebs in all ages of the Church since the Apostles the Clergy and People Secondly seeing it is manifest that the Power of the Keys is above the Office of Preaching to a Christian Church indeed equall to that of celebrating the Eucharist it followeth that it is against the Order declared by the Scripture that the Power of the Keys should be in any man that is not allowed to Preach and celebrate the Eucharist and therefore that by having the Power of the Keys a man is by Right qualified to doe it And truly I doe much marvell how this consequence can be refused as to the Office of Preaching when as S. Paul requires both of Timothy and Titus that the Presbyters which they ordain be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is fit to teach For no common sense can allow that the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 having the signification not from Preaching but from Governing is not to comprehend Governing Elders as well as Preachers Therefore the Scriptures make those Preachers whom the Presbyteries make Governing Elders Here follows a third argument drawn from that onely Text of the Apostle upon which their Lay Elders are grounded with any appearance 1 Tim. V. 17. Let the Elders that Rule well be counted worthy of double honour especially those that labour in the Word and Doctrine For by the Apostles Discourse it is manifest and so far as I perceive agreed on all hands that the word Honour here spoken of is maintenance S. Pauls instruction supposing the Order setled by the Apostles to be this that there should be in all Churches setled in Cities as aforesaid a common stock at the disposing of Bishop and Presbyters rising from the Oblations of the faithfull out of which first those that attended upon the Government of the Church and the Offices of Divine Service then those that could not attend the Service of God without maintenance from the Publique might finde subsistence For hereupon it is that S. Paul chargeth Timothy to honour widows indeed that were destitute of maintenance from their friends that they might abide in prayers and supplications as Anna the Prophetesse Luc. II. 36. and Iudith VIII 5. and the good women that waited at the Tabernacle Ex. XXXVIII 8. 1 Sam. II. 24. And when he saith 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 he shews that there was then a List of them called here 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by Church Writers afterwards Canon which whosoever was entred into received appointment from the Church 1 Tim. V. 5 9 16. Let it therefore be said no more that the distinction between Clergy and people is not found in the Scriptures For how can the Office be more expresly distinguished then by the appointment that is allowed for the execution of it And therefore when S. Peter charges the Presbyters 1 Pet. V. 3. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 he means not the people but he means the same which Clemens in Eusebius when he says that S. Iohn was wont to go abroad from Ephesus to forein Churches on purpose 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is to Ordain some Clergy man that should be signified by the Spirit For in both places 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is taken for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and so S. Peters precept 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 consists of two members not to domineer over the Clergy that were under them that is the Deacons Widows and Deaconesses and to be a Pattern to the Flock In this Discourse of S. Paul we have a further reason of difference between the Clergy and people from that Rule of life and conversation to which the Clergy was subject by the Primitive Discipline of the Church For if the Church allowed Widows an appointment in consideration of their daily attendance upon the Service of God much more are we bound to conceive that Presbyters whom the Apostle allows a double appointment are tied to double attendance on the same Service A thing which cannot be expected of those who are tied to the World and therefore Tertullian De Praescript cap. XLI condemneth the Hereticks because their fashion was to make secular men Presbyters Seeing then that the Apostle alloweth the same double appointment to the whole Order of Presbyters let them that set up Lay Elders ask their own Consciences whether they can be content to allow them the same maintenance from the Church as themselves receive otherwise let them not imagine that they can set them up by this Scripture For that some Presbyters should labour in Preaching though all are required to be apt to Preach is no inconvenience in that State when Congregations were not distinguished but the whole Office rested in the whole Order of the Clergy in relation to the whole Body of the People of a Church You see by S. Paul 1 Cor. XIV that one Assembly whereof he speaks there furnished with a great number of Prophets whether Presbyters or over and above them In the Records of the Church we find divers times a whole Bench of Presbyters presiding at one Assembly Is any man so unsatiable of Preaching as to think the Church unprovided of it unlesse all those Preached at all times Is it not enough that Timothy is required to count them especially worthy double honour that labour in it for by this means those that laboured not in it when and how Timothy finds it requisite must know that their maintenance must come harder from his hands For the last argument I must not forget the perpetuall practice of the Church though I name for the present but the words of Clemens Disciple to the Apostles who in his Epistle to the Corinthians to compose a difference among the Presbyters of that Church partly about the celebration of the Eucharist advises them to agree and take their turns in it If all the Presbyters might take their turns in it then all might celebrate the Eucharist if in that Church then in all Churches I know many Church Writers are quoted to prove Lay Elders For that also is grown a point of Learning to load the Margin with Texts of Scripture and allegations of Authors in hope no man will take the pains to compare them because if he do he shall easily finde them nothing to the purpose For instance My self have the honour to be alleged for one that approve Lay Elders even in that place of that very Discourse where I answer the best arguments that ever I heard made for them onely because I said then as now that we are not bound to think that all Presbyters
Preached during the Apostles times What reason then can any Reader have to presume that any of their dead witnesses make more for their purpose then I who am alive and stand to see my self alleged point blank against the position which I intended to prove because forsooth in their understanding the premises which I use stand not with the conclusion which I intended to prove But to speak plain English for the future if any man can shew by any writing of any Christian from the Apostles to this innovation any man indowed with the Power of the Keys that was not also qualified to Preach and to celebrate the Eucharist I am content to be of the Presbyteries the next morning though I am so well satisfied that it will never be shewed that I say confidently it will always be to morrow Now because the Power of the Keys that is the whole Power of the Church whereof that Power is the root and source is common to Bishop and Presbyters it is here demanded what Act we can shew peculiar to the Bishop by precept of Gods Word for which that Order may be said to be superiour to that of Presbyters A demand sutable to the definition of the Schoole wherein an Order is said to be a Power to doe some speciall Act But extremely wide of the Terms that have been held heretofore Have we been told all this while that the Presbyteries are the Throne and Scepter of Christ the force and Power of his Kingdome hath so much Christian blood been drawn for the Cause and now in stead of shewing that they are either commanded or consistent with the Word of God is it demanded that the Government in possession in the Church from the Apostles shew reason why it cannot be abolished though instituted by the Apostles Surely though this is possible to be shewed yet though it could not be shewed it might be beyond any Power on earth to abolish the Order of Bishops For my part I conceive I have shewed heretofore that the Power of every respective Church was deposited by the Apostles with the respective Bishop and Presbyters and that therefore in the ages next to the Apostles the advice and consent of the Presbyters did concurre with the Bishop in ordering of Ecclesiasticall matters whereas Congregations were not yet distinct but a Bishop and Presbyters over the common Body of each Church Over and above what hath been said the condemning of Marcion at Rome and of Noetus at Ephesus are expresly said by Epiphanius Haer. XLII num I II. Haer. LVII nu I. to have been done passed by the Act of the Presbyters of those Churches The difference between Alexander Bishop and Arius Presbyter of Alexandria is said to have risen at a meeting and debate of that Bishop and his Presbyters in the letter of Constantine to those two reported by Eusebius De Vitâ Constant II. cap. penult And Epiphanius Haer. LXIX num III. And which is of a later date the Excommunication of Andronicus in Synesius his fifty seventh Epistle I finde reported to have passed in the same sort And all this agreeable to the practice recorded in the Scriptures For when S. Paul instructeth Timothy saying 1 Tim. V. 19 20. Against a Presbyter receive not an accusation but under two or three witnesses Them that sin rebuke openly that the rest may fear Is it not easie to gather from hence that he commandeth such accusations to be brought and proved before Timothy with the rest of his Presbyters but the competent censure to be executed before the whole Congregation of the Church And is it not manifest that S. James first gives S. Paul audience in a Consistory of the Presbyters to advise what course to take before the Congregation be acquainted with the businesse Acts XXI 18 The same being the practice of S. Cyprians time when Cornelius of Rome writeth to him Epist XLVI placuit contrahi Presbyterium As also expressed in the Apostolicall Constitutions II. 47. by the name of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Consistories appointed there to be held every week for composing all differences against the Lords Day And therefore as for my part the learned Blondell might have spared all his exact diligence to shew that Presbyters did concurre with the Bishop in acts of this nature The cunning would be in proving the consequence that therefore Bishop and Presbyters are all one which all common sense disavows For be it granted which he insisteth upon so much that as the Commentary upon S. Pauls Epistles under S. Ambrose his Name relateth Eph. IV. 11. at the first the eldest of the Presbyters was wont to be taken into the place of the Bishop For it is probable that this course was kept in some places though his conjectures will not serve to prove that it was a generall Rule what will this inable him to inferre as for the power of the Bishop being once received into the first place who knows very well the gallant speech of Valentinian recorded by Ammianus lib. XXVI to the very Army that had chosen him Emperour and at the instant of his inauguration began to mutiny about retracting their choice that it was in their power to choose an Emperour before they had done it Intimating that being chosen it was not in their power to withdraw their obedience For by the same reason whatsover be the means that promoted the Bishop the measure of the power to which he was promoted must be taken from the Law given the Church by the Apostles expressed by the practice of it As there is no doubt but the Romane Emperors were advanced to an absolute Power though by the choice of their Souldiers It is not my purpose to say that the Power of the Bishop in the Church is such But it is my purpose to appeal to common sense and daily experience and to demand whether in those Societies or Bodies which consist of a standing Councell and a Head thereof indowed with the Privilege of a Negative the Power of the Head and of the severall members be one and the same If not then is there the same difference between the Bishop and the Presbyters by the Scriptures interpreted by the Originall practice of the Church The Instructions addressed to Timothy Titus I suppose obliged not them alone but all that were concerned to yeeld obedience to what thereby they are commanded to doe If any thing concerning the subject of those instructions could have passed without Timothy and Titus they were all a meer nullity For instance if by the Presbyters Votes Ordination might have been made without Timothy they might commit sin and the blame thereof lie on Timothies score to which S. Paul if he lay hands suddenly on any man makes him liable So the Angels of the seven Churches as they are commended for the good so are they charged with the sins of their Churches Which how can it be reasonable but for the eminent power in them without
to oblige superiours to that integrity by making the proceedings manifest and so to preserve the Unity of the Church I say not that these times are capable of such satisfaction upon the like terms as them But from this practice under the Apostles I shall easily grant the people an Interesse in such things as may concern their particular Congregations of excepting against such proceedings as can appear to them to be against any Rule of the Scripture or of the whole Church For this Interesse it is upon which the people is demanded in the Church of England what they have to say against Ordinations and Mariages to be made And if their satisfaction in matter of Penance were to be returned it would be no more then the same reason inferres Especially because it hath been shewed that the prayers of the People or of the Church is one part of the means to take away sinne by the Keys of the Church the other being the Humiliation of the Penitent according to that Order and measure which the Bishop and Presbyters shall prescribe James V. 14 15. 2 Cor. XII 20 21. Mat. XVIII 21. 1 John V. 16. And if this Interesse were made effectuall by the Laws of Christian States and Kingdomes to the hindrance of such proceedings wherein the Power of the Church may be abused the Church shall have no cause to complain But that the Power should be taken from the Church because the Laws of the State are not so good as they might be is as unjust and pernicious a medicine as to put the Chief Power in the hands of the People For seeing it hath been demonstrated that as it was the custome to passe such Acts at the Assemblies of the whole Church so was it also to advise and resolve upon them at the Consistories of the Clergy it is manifest that the suffrage of the People often mentioned in Church Writers was not to resolve but to passe what was resolved afore because nothing appeared in barre to it For the Interesse of the People extending no further then their own Church and it being impossible that all the Christians within the Territories of Cities belonging to the respective Churches should all assemble at once it is manifest none of these matters could be resolved by number of Votes and therefore that the Power was not in the People but a Right to be satisfied of the right use of the Power by those that had it Which how it may be made effectuall to the benefit of the People in a Christian Church and State is not for me to determine But by virtue of this Right it is that as Justellus in his Notes upon the Greek and Africane Canons hath observed to us especially out of the Records of the Churches of Africk and of the West for divers Ages the Best of the People who as he shews were called Seniores Presbyteri Ecclesiarum were admitted to assist at the passing of the publique Acts of those Churches In all which as there is nothing to be found like the Power of the Keys which Lay Elders are created to manage So he that will consider the interesse in which it appears they did intervene comparing it with the intolerable trouble which the concurrence of the People was found to breed when the number of Christians was increased by the Emperours professing Christianity will easily judge that it was nothing else but the Interesse of the People which in succeeding ages was referred to some persons chosen out of them to manage in the publique Acts of the Church And this custome is sutable enough with the Office of Church-wardens in the Church of England if it had been established as well in the Mother and Cathedrall as in the Parish Churches CHAP. IV. Secular Persons as such have no Ecclesiasticall Power but may have Soveraign Power in Ecclesiasticall matters The Right of giving Laws to the Church and the Right of Tithes Oblations and all Consecrations how Originall how Accessory to the Church The Interesse of Secular Powers in all parts of the Power of the Church THese things thus determined and the whole Power of the Church thus limited in Bishops and Presbyters with reservation of the Interesse of the People specified it follows necessarily that no Secular person whatsoever endowed with Soveraign or subordinate Power in any State is thereby endowed with any part of this Ecclesiasticall Power hitherto described Because it hath been premised for a Principle here to be reassumed that no State by professing Christianity and the protection thereof can purchase to it self or defeat the Church of any part of the Right whereof it stands possessed by the Originall institution of our Lord and his Apostles and therefore no person indowed with any quality subsisting by the Constitution of any State can challenge any Right that subsisteth by the Constitution of the Church and therefore belongeth to some person qualified by the same For Ecclesiasticall Power I understand here to be onely that which subsisteth by the Constitution of the Church And therefore all by Divine Right to all that acknowledge no humane authority capable of founding the Church And therefore by Divine Right invested in the Persons of them that have received it mediately or immediately from the Apostles seeing it is no ways imaginable how any man can stand lawfully possessed of that Power which is effectually in some body else from whom he claimeth not And therefore not to be propagated but by the free act of them that so have it But I intend not hereby to exclude Secular Powers from their Right in Church matters But intend to distinguish between Ecclesiasticall Power and Power in Ecclesiasticall matters and these to distinguish by the originall from whence they both proceed because so we shall be best able to make an estimate of the effect which both of them are able to produce according to the saying observed afore that the water rises no higher then it descended afore For if by Ecclesiasticall Power we mean that which arises from the Constitution of the Church it is not possible that by any quality not depending on the same any man should be inabled to any act that doth But if Power in matters of Religion be a Power necessary to the subsistence of all States then have Christian States that Power in the disposing of Christianity which all States in generall have in the disposing of those things which concern that Religion which they suppose and professe And this to prove I will not be much beholding to the Records of Histories or to the opinions and reasons of Philosophers Seeing common sense alone is able to shew us that there is not any State professing any Religion that does not exercise an interesse in disposing of matters of Religion as they have relation to the publique peace tranquillity and happinesse of that people The Power of disposing in matters of Religion is one part and that a very considerable one of that publique
the advancement of godlinesse otherwise such had not been Ordained by the Apostles and Governors of Gods ancient People For of this nature is the vailing of women at Divine Service of which S. Paul writes to the Corinthians the Kisse of Charity so often mentioned in the writings of the Apostles which the Constitutions of the Apostles II. 57. and Origen upon the last to the Romanes shew to have been practised before the Consecration and the receiving of the Eucharist to signifie the Charity in which they came to communicate the many Ceremonies of Baptism to which S. Paul alludes in divers places Col. II. 11 12. III. 9 10. Rom. VI. 4 5. to wit putting off old clothes drenching in water so as to seem to be buried in it putting on new clothes at their comming out Which being used in the Primitive Church by these passages of S. Paul we are sure were Instituted by the Apostles Of this nature are the gestures of Prayer which we reade in the Scripture that it was always the custome of Gods people to make sitting kneeling or groveling as the inward dejection of the minde required a greater or lesse degree of outward humiliation of the body to produce and maintain as well as to signifie it Thus our Lord stands up to reade the Law but sits down to Preach Luc. IV. 16 20. the one to shew reverence to the Giver of the Law the other authority over the Congregation which he taught as a Prophet And therefore I make no doubt but that in receiving the Book of the Law he used that reverence which was and is used in the Synagogue the like whereof by the Acts of the Primitive Martyrs we understand to have been used to the Book of the Gospels for in the examination of one of them you have Qui sunt libri quos adoratis legentes as we now stand up at the reading of the Gospel Of this nature are the ceremonies of the Jews publick Fasts quoted afore out of the Prophet Joel which it seems the Prophet Jonas taught the Ninevites at their Fast Jon. III. 5 6. which sure have no force to move God to compassion but as they move men to that humiliation which procures it of this nature is Imposition of hands used in the Scripture in Blessing that is in solemne Prayers for other Persons as in the Gospel over children and sick persons as in the Law Jacob lays hands on Josephs children Moses on Joshua and the LXX Presbyters the Prophets on such as they cured 2 Kings VI. 11. whereupon it was received by the Ordinance of the Apostles in Confirmation Penance and Ordinations as also it is said to be still used in some Eastern Churches at the Blessing of Mariages In fine the Frontlets and the Scrols which God appoints the Jews to set upon their Fore-heads and the Posts of their doores Exod. XIII 9. Deut. VI. 8. XI 17. for my part I make a great question whether he obligeth them thereby to use according to the letter as they do But that commanding the effect the remembrance of the Law he should be thought to forbid the means that is the sensible wearing of such marks that I count utterly incredible Seeing it was easie for them to use such marks and yet to think themselves never a whit the holier for them without the thing signified though in our Lords time they did so as we see by his reproofs in the Gospel and though by their writings Maimoni by name in the Title of Finages cap. III. and in the Title of Phylacteries ca. XI XII we see that still they do And thus upon the reasons advanced that is of determining that which the Law of God determines not follows the whole Power of the Church in deciding matters of Doctrine in determining the circumstances and ceremonies of Gods publick worship and of all the Ordinances of God for the maintenance and exercise of the same For in instituting Ceremonies significative not of Christ to come that indeed and that onely is Judaism but of the Faith and devotion which we desire to serve God with it is enough that this power may be exercised to the advancement of godlinesse if it be exercised otherwise then it ought it is still to be obeyed because the Unity of the Church is of great consequence to maintain though we attain not that advancement of godlinesse which the use of this Power ought to procure but does not And if any Power should be void because it is not used for the best or absolutely not well used then could no humane society subsist either Sacred or Civile Which must subsist in all things wherein it commands not the contrary of a more ancient Law which is Gods Law in our case From the premises it will not be difficult to resolve whether Councels be of Divine Right or not distinguishing between substance and circumstance between the purpose and effect of them and the manner of procuring it For if we speak of giving Law to the Society of the Church it is proved that whether you take it for a Power or a Duty a Right or a Charge or rather both seeing the one cannot be parted from the other the Church may and ought to proceed to determine what is not determined but determinable by consent of particular Churches that is by the consent of such persons which have Power to conclude the consent of their respective Churches Whereof we have shewed that none can ever be concluded without the consent of their respective Bishops But if we speak of the circumstance and manner of assembling in one place certain persons in behalf of their severall Churches with authority to prejudice and foresway and preingage the consent of the same We have a precedent or rather precedents without a precept in the Acts of the Apostles where the Apostles are assembled to Ordain a twelfth Apostle Acts I. 13. where they are assembled to institute the Order of Deacons Acts VI. 2 where Paul and Barnabas come from Antiochia and the Churches depending thereupon to the Apostles and Church of Jerusalem to take resolution in their differences Acts XV. 1 where Paul goes in to James to advise how to behave himself without offence to the Christian Jews at Jerusalem Acts XXI 18 for the premises being admitted all these meetings are justly and necessarily counted Synods or Councels both in regard of the Persons whereof they consisted the consent of divers Apostles being of as much authority to the Church as the resolution of a Synod and in regard of the matter determined at them concerning the whole Church in a high degree especially at that time And we have a Canon among those of the Apostles which appears very ancient by the Canons of Nice containing the same and turning Custome into Statute Law commanding that Synods be held in every Province twice a year But when Tertullian tels us that in the parts of Greece they held Councels ordinarily he constrains us
to beleeve that in other parts of the Church they did not and when we reade of persecutions against the ordinary assemblies of the Church we must presume that as the persecution of Councells would have made greater desolation in the Church so must they needs be more subject to be persecuted And by Eusebius and the rest of the Ecclesiasticall Histories and by the communication of the Primitive Bishops Clemens Ignatius Polycarpus S. Cyprian and the rest as they follow still extant in their Epistles we understand that their personall Assemblies were supplied by their Formatae or letters of mark whereby the acts of some Churches the most eminent being approved by the rest after they were sent to them purchased the same force with the Acts of Councels Wherefore the holding of Councels is of Divine right so farre as it is manifest to common sense that it is a readier way to dispatch matters determinable though when it cannot be had not absolutely necessary But it is always necessary that seeing no Church can be concluded without the Bishop thereof the Bishops of all Churches concurre to the Acts that must oblige their Churches Not so their Presbyters because it is manifest that all Presbyters cannot concurre though upon particular occasion some may as the Presbyters of the Church where a Councell is held as at Jerusalem Acts XV. 6. which we finde therefore practised in divers Councels of the Church As to supply the place of their Bishops by deputation in their absence or perhaps as to propound matters of extraordinary consequence As for the whole People to be concluded by the Act of a Councell as all cannot always be present supposing the dependence of Churches so nothing hinders any part thereof to intercede in any thing contrary to Christianity that is of the substance thereof or of Divine right Therefore in the Order of holding Councels which is wont to be put before the Volumes of the Councels the people is allowed to be present as they were at Jerusalem Acts XV. 12 13 22. I come now to a nice Point of the Originall Right of the Church to Tithes First-fruits and Oblations For as it cannot be pretended that the same measure which the Law provideth is due under the Gospel so it is manifest that the quality of Priests and Levites to whom they were due is ceased as much as the Sacrifices which they were to attend and it is certain that they were maintained expresly in consideration of that attendance This difficulty must be resolved by the difference between the Law and the Gospel The Law expresly provideth onely for the Ceremoniall Service of God in the Temple by Sacrifices and Figures of good things to come But no man doubteth that there were always assemblies for the Service of God all over the Country for the opportunity whereof in time Synagogues were built where the Law was taught and publick Prayers offered to God This Office of Teaching the Law cannot be restrained to the Tribe of Levi. So farre as the Prophets and their Schools of Disciples furnished it not their Consistories which had the Authority to determine what was lawfull what unlawfull were consequently charged with this Office Now they consisted not onely of the Tribe of Levi but in the first place of the best of their Cities to whom were added as assistant some of that Tribe unlesse we speak of the Priests Cities in particular for credibly the Consistories of them consisted only of Priests For that Tribe being dispersed all over the Land to gather their revenue were by that means ready to attend on this Office of assisting in Judgement and Teaching the Law So saith Josephus Antiq. IV. 8. that the Consistories of particular Cities consisted of seven Chief of every City assisted each with two of the Tribe of Levi which with a President and his Deputy or Second such as we know the High Consistory at Jerusalem had makes up the number of XXIII which the Talmud Doctors say they consisted of Therefore it is a mistake of them that think the Scribes and Pharisees whom our Lord commands to obey had usurped the Office of the Priests and Levites For what hinders the Priests and Levites to be Scribes and Pharisees themselves though other Israelites were Scribes and Pharisees besides Priests and Levites Neither Pharisees nor Priests and Levites had this authority as Pharisees or as Priests and Levites but as members or assistants of the Consistories The reason because Gods Law whereby his worship was determined was also the Civile Law of that People because the Land of Canaan was promised them upon condition of living according to it therefore the Teaching of the Law must belong to them who by the Law were to Judge and Govern the People God stirring up Prophets from time to time to clear the true meaning thereof from humane corruptions So onely the Service of the Temple and only that Tribe which attended on the Service of the Temple was to be provided for the rest being provided for by the possession of the Land of Promise But when the service of God in Spirit and Truth was to be established in all places as well as at Jerusalem and the Church incorporated by God into one Society and Common-wealth for the exercise thereof what endowment God appointed this Corporation for the Exchequer of it is best judged by what appears to have been done in the Scriptures which cannot be attributed but to the authority of the Apostles the Governours of the Church at that time At Jerusalem the Contributions were so great in the beginning of Christianity that many offered their whole estates to maintain the community of the Church Was this to oblige all Christians ever after to destroy civile society by communion of goods As if there could be no other reason why Christians should strip themselves of their estates at that time The advancement of Christianity then in the shell required continuall attendance of the whole Church upon the Service of God This withdrawing the greater part of Disciples which were poor from the means of living required greater oblations of the rich The Scripture teaches us that the whole Church continued in the Service of God So that out of the common stock of the Church common entertainment was provided for rich and poor at which entertainment the Sacrament of the Eucharist was celebrated as it was instituted by our Lord at his last Supper This is that which is called Breaking of Bread Acts II. 42 46. XX. 7. and by the Apostle 1 Cor. XI 20. the Supper of the Lord not meaning thereby the Sacrament of the Eucharist but this common entertainment at which that Sacrament was celebrated which therefore is truly called the Sacrament of the Lords Supper not the Supper of the Lord for you see the Apostle complains that because the rich and the poor supped not together therefore they did not celebrate the Supper of the Lord. The same thing it is which S.
in his Gospel hath left concerning Mariage For if this be peculiar to Christians as Christians then whatsoever becomes questionable upon the interpretation of this Law concerning the Church as it is the Church must needs fall under the sentence of those that are inabled to conclude the Society of the Church And therefore it is without question as ancient as Christianity that no Mariage be made which the Church alloweth not the Benediction whereof upon Mariages is a sign of the allowance of the Church presupposed as that upon the Mariage of Booz and Ruth Ruth IV. 11. presupposeth the act to be allowed by the Elders or Consistory of Bethlehem as you have it afore These difficulties thus voided it remains that the Secular Powers stand bound in conscience to inforce the Jurisdiction of the Church where the exercise of it produceth nothing contrary to the principles of Christianity or the quiet of the State As for the interesse of the State in Ordinations the same reason holds It is very manifest by many examples of commendable times under Christian Emperors that many Ordinations have been made at the instance and command of Emperors and Soveraign Princes And why not what hindreth them to make choice of fitter persons then the Clergy and People can agree to choose And what hindreth the Church upon consideration of their choice to reform their own But when Soveraign Powers by Generall Laws forbid Ordinations to proceed but upon persons nominated by themselves how then shall the Right of the Church take place or what shall be the effect of S. Pauls precept to Timothy To lay hands hastily on no man lest he partake of other mens sins Which cannot take place unlesse he that Ordain be free not to Ordain The President Thuanus writing of the Concordates between Leo the tenth and Francis the first by which the Canonicall way of Election of Bishops was abolished in France saith freely that that great Prince never prospered after that Act giving this for his reason because thereby that course of electing Bishops was taken away which had been introduced from the beginning by the Apostles In fine of this particular I shall need to say no more but this according to the generall reason premised that qualities ordained by the constitution of the Church are to be conferred by persons qualified so to doe by the constitution of the Church But with this moderation that Secular Powers be satisfied not onely that the persons promoted be not prejudiciall to the Peace of the State whereof they have charge by their proper qualities but also that as Christians they be not assistant to the promotion of those who professe the contrary of that which they as Christians professing are bound to maintain In the last place it will not be difficult from the premises to determine the interesse of the State in setling maintaining and disposing of the indowment of the Church For seeing the reasons premised which now are laught at by those that will not understand wherein Christianity consists have prevailed so far with all Christian people that all Tithes and many other Oblations and Indowments are and have been in all parts consecrated to God as the First-fruits of Christians goods for the maintenance of his Service it remains the duty of the Secular Sword to maintain the Church in that right For that publick Power that shall lay hands on such goods shall rob both God and the People God in respect of the Act of Consecration past upon such goods the People in respect of the Originall right and reason of the Church which first moved Christians to consecrate the same By virtue of which right that which first was consecrated being taken away by force Christian people remain no lesse obliged to separate from the remainder of their poverty that which shall be proportionable to that which all Christian people have always consecrated to God out of their estates And those that perswade good Christians that such consecrations have proceeded only from the cousenage of the Clergy for their own advantage may as well perswade them that they were cousened when they were perswaded to be Christians seeing such consecrations have been made by all Christian people As for the disposing of that which is given to the publick use of the Church I say not the same I hold it necessary that the Church satisfie the State that whatsoever is given to such use may be to the common good of the people and so leave the imperfection of Laws to blame that it is not A thing which I think may very reasonably be done For first all Cathedrall Churches being by the institution of the Apostles intire Bodies in themselves distinct from other Churches according to that which hath been proved of the dependence of Churches all Oblations to any Church originally belong to the Body thereof in common at the disposing of the Bishop and Presbyters thereof which is known to have been the Primitive Order of the Church derived from the practice of the Apostles which I have declared out of the Scriptures Though they have complied with the bounty of those that have indowed Parish Churches and consented to limit the indowments of every one of them to it self alone Secondly it is manifest that the Clergy are under such a Discipline of the Primitive Church that so long as they continue to live in such a discipline they can neither waste the indowment of the Church upon themselves nor use it to the advancement of their Families Which Discipline if the Secular Power be imploied to retrive it will not be thereby destructive to the Power of the Church but cumulative As likewise if it be imploied to the most advantageous distribution of that masse of Church goods which lies affected and deputed to any Cathedrall Church through the whole Diocese thereof in case the distribution made by Humane Right appear prejudiciall to those charitable purposes which are the means by which the Service of God through that Church or Diocese is maintained and advanced Provided always that a greater Sacrilege be not committed by robbing the Bishop and Presbyters of the Right and Power which they have from the Apostles in disposing of the indowment of their Church These things promised it is easie to undertake that there never was so great a part of the fruits of this Land mortified and put out of commerce and applied and affected to the Church but that it was in that estate more advantageous to the publick strength security and plenty of the Nation as well as to the service of God and the charitable maintenance of those that attend it in case the Secular Power had been improved to dispose of it for the best then it can be in any particular hands especially in the hands of Sacrilege CHAP. V. How the Church may be Reformed without violating Divine Right What Privileges and Penalties a Christian State may inforce Christianity with The Consent of the Church is the
Christianity Therefore the words of our Lord That his Disciples should not be as the Gentiles among whom the great ones domineer over the rest and in so doing were called Gracious Lords Mat. XX. 25. Mar. X. 42 43. Luc. XXII 25 26. being spoken to his Disciples as Christians not as Apostles in commendation of humility and meeknesse a quality concerning all Christians cannot prove the Clergy forbidden secular imploiment but they must by the same reason inforce all Civile Power to be unlawfull among Christians as also in the Society of the Church all superiority of power as unlawfull as that which is here challenged on behalf of Bishops and Presbyters On the other side that which they are supposed to destroy they manifestly presuppose that is to say a Superiority of power among the Disciples of Christ by the names of greater and lesse competible with the quality of his Disciples And therefore concern not the lawfulnesse of power but the right use of it and so forbid no sort of Christians any power whereof any Christian is capable The words of S. Paul are more pertinent to this purpose 2 Tim. II. 4. for it is a comparison that he borroweth from the custome of the Romane Empire wherein Soldiers as they were exempted from being Tutors to mens persons or Curators to their estates so they were forbidden to be Proctors of other mens causes to undertake husbandry or merchandise Therefore when S. Paul saith to Timothy No man that goeth to the army intangleth himself in businesse of the world that he may please him that imprested him He raises indeed a particular exhortation to Timothy upon a generall ground of reason appearing in the Romane Laws that those of Timothies quality oblige not themselves to businesse inconsistent with it But can he be understood hereby to make that a Law to the Militia of the Church which was a Law to the Militia of the Empire Or can an exhortation drawn from a comparison be thought to create a generall Law to all of Timothies quality in generall or in particular further then the reason of the comparison will inferre in every particular case It is true that Soldiers were forbidden businesse of profit were exempted emploiments of publick service as was that of Tutors and Curators because thereby they became obliged to the Laws or to their own profit to the prejudice of their attendance upon their colours That is to say that for the great distance between Civile and Military emploiment in that State the Laws had rendred Soldiers uncapable of such qualities And so it is confessed that the Laws of the Church the Canons rendred the Clergy uncapable of the like during the distance between the Church and the State not yet Christian For so we find that in S. Cyprians time Clergy men were forbidden to be Tutors or Curators for the like reason because their obligation to the Laws in that estate would have excused them to the Church And because that by reason of the distance between the State of the Church at that time it could not tend to any publick good of the Society of the Church But in States that professe Christianity can it be said that the attendance of Clergy men upon the affairs of the Commonwealth cannot be to the publick good of the Church consisting of all the same persons onely in a distinct reason and quality whereof the Commonwealth consisteth To me it seems farre otherwise that in all publick Assemblies of States whether for making Laws or for Jurisdiction or for Counsell or for preservation of publick Peace to banish those from them whose quality and profession entitles them to the most exact knowledge and practice of Christianity is to banish the consideration of Christianity from the conclusions and effects of those Assemblies For though it be seen by experience that the Clergy come short of the holinesse and exact conversation in Christianity which they professe yet it will be always seen likewise that the people fail more and before them and that they are first corrupted by and with the people then corrupters of the people And as for the service of the Church which they cannot attend upon in the mean time supposing the Order here challenged to be instituted by the Apostles the inconvenience ceaseth For supposing all Cathedrall Churches to be Corporations trusted to provide for the government of all Congregations contained in them in Church matters and the Ministery of the Offices of Divine Service at the same whatsoever Clergy man shall by publick imploiment destitute his Congregation shall leave it to the care of the Church originally entrusted with it Which Churches being all Nurseries and Seminaries of Clergy designed for the Service of their respective Bodies may easily by the means thereof see all Offices discharged from time to time to all Congregations which they contain And this is that which I desired to say here in generall to this most difficult point of the Privileges and Penalties which Christianity may be established and enforced with by a State that professes it As for the particulars which upon those generall reasons may be disputed in point of lawfull or unlawfull as also for the point of expedience whereby that which in generall may be done ought or ought not to be done when the case is put I leave to them that are qualified and obliged to proceed in determining the same To come then to the great difficulty proposed it is to be acknowledged that the Power of the Church in the persons of them to whom it is derived by continuall succession is a Law ordained by the Apostles for the unity and edification of the Church So that no part of the Whole can stand obliged by any Act that is not done by the Councell and Synod of Bishops respective to that part of the Church which it pretendeth to oblige But withall it is to be acknowledged that there are abundance of other Laws given the Church by our Lord and his Apostles whether they concern matters of Faith or matter of Works whether immediately concerning the salvation of particular Christians or only the publick Order of the Church which proceeding from the same if not a greater power then the Succession of the Church are to be retained all and every one of them with the same Religion and conscience And with this limitation the distinction which the Church of Rome is usually answered with is to be admitted between succession of Persons and succession of Doctrine Not as if it were not a part of Christian doctrine that the Succession of the Apostles is to be obeyed as their Ordinance but because there are many other points of doctrine delivered the Church by our Lord and his Apostles all and every one of them equally to be regarded with it Again I have shewed that the Secular Power is bound to protect the Ecclesiasticall in determining all things which are not determined by our Lord and his Apostles and to give force
Apostles shall it be without the compasse of any Secular Power to dissolve it And therefore the consequence hereof in the present state of Christianity among us is further to be deduced because many men may be perswaded of their obligation to the Church upon supposition of the Divine Right of Bishops who perhaps perceive not the former reason of their obligation to them here asserted as to the Ordinary Pastors of the Church To proceed then out of the premises to frame a judgement of the state and condition of Christianity in England at the present and from that judgement to conclude what they that will preserve the conscience of good Christians are to doe or to avoid in maintaining the Society and Communion of the Church Put the case that an Ecclesiasticall Power be claimed and used upon some perswasions contrary to the substance of true Christianity and pretending thereby to govern those that adhere to the same perswasion in the Communion of those Ordinances which God requireth to be served with by his Church according to the same perswasion I suppose no man will deny this to be the crime of Heresie containing not onely a perswasion contrary to the foundation of Faith but also an Ecclesiasticall Power founded upon it and thereby a separation from the Communion of the Church which acknowledgeth not the same Put the case again that an Ecclesiasticall Power is claimed and used not upon a perswasion contrary to any thing immediately necessary to the salvation of all Christians as the foundation of Faith and all that belongeth to it is but upon a perswasion contrary to something necessary to the Society of the whole Church as commanded by our Lord Christ or his Apostles to be regulated thereby and this with a pretense to govern those that adhere to the same perswasion in the Communion of all Ecclesiasticall Ordinances according to it this I cannot see how it can be denied to be the crime of Schism And this God be blessed that I cannot say it is done in England but in consequence to the premises I must say that this is it which hath been and is endevoured to be done in it and therefore to be avoided by all that will not communicate in an act of Schism I doe not deny that Presbyters have an interesse in the Power of the Keys and by consequence in all parts of Ecclesiasticall Power being all the productions thereof But I have shewed that their Interesse is in dependence upon their respective Bishops without whom by the Ordinance of the Apostles and the practice of all Churches that are not parties in this cause nothing is to be done When as therefore Presbyters dividing among themselves the eminent Power of their Bishops presume to manage it without acknowledgement of them out of an opinion that the eminence of their Power is contrary to the Ordinance of our Lord and his Apostles or that not being contrary to the same it is lawfull for Presbyters to take it out of the hands either of Bishops or of simple Presbyters had they been so possessed of it When as they joyn with themselves some of the People in the quality of Lay Elders or what ever they will have them called and of these constitute Consistories for all severall Congregations endowed with the Power of the Keys over the same though in dependence upon greater Assemblies out of the opinion that this is the Ordinance of our Lord his Apostles and this not to manage the Interesse of the People that nothing passe contrary to the Laws given the Church by God which are their inheritance as well as the Clergies but in a number double to that of the Presbyters in all Consistories and in a right equall to them man for man so that it may truly be said that the whole Power of Clergy and People is vested in these Lay Elders that one quality consenting being able to conclude the whole When as the determination who shall or shall not be admitted to Communion returneth at last to a number of Secular persons making them thereby Judges of the Laws of Christianity and enabling them thereby to give and take away the Ecclesiasticall being of any member of the Church in those cases to which that power extendeth and investing a Civile Court with the Power of the Keys in the same All these points being members of the Ordinance for the establishment of the Presbyteries I say then that by that Ordinance an Ecclesiasticall Power is erected upon so many perswasions of things concerning the publick Order of the Society of the Church contrary to the Laws given the Church by our Lord and his Apostles by a Secular Power interessed onely in point of Fact in Church matters without any ground of Right to do it and that therefore the endevouring to establish these Presbyteries is an act of Schism which particular Christians though they never by any expresse act of their own tied themselves to be subject to Bishops are neverthelesse bound not to communicate in because they are bound upon their salvation to maintain the Unity of the Church and the Unity of the Church established upon these Laws whereof the Succession of Bishops is one As for the design of the Congregations it is easily perceived to come to this effect That to the intent that Christian people may be tied to no Laws but such as the Spirit of God which is in them convinces them to be established upon the Church by the Scripture and that thereupon the ordering of all matters concerning the Society of the Church may proceed upon conviction of every mans judgement Therefore every Congregation of Christians assembling to the Service of God to be absolute and independent on any other part or the whole Church the Power being vested in the members of the said Congregation under the Authority of the Pastor and Elders as aforesaid And that therefore every Congregation constituting it self a Church constitutes by consequence and destitutes Pastors Elders and Members So that by this design an Ecclesiasticall Power being erected upon so many perswasions contrary to the Laws given the Church by our Lord and his Apostles the act of Schism is more visible Though for the claim and Title by which this Ecclesiasticall Power is erected in both ways that of the Congregations is more sutable to Christianity because that of the Presbyteries more forcible both equally destructive to the right of the Church For that a Parliament by which Power the Assembly of Divines was called not disputing now the Power of a Parliament in England but supposing it to be as great for the purpose as any Christian State can exercise should erect an Ecclesiasticall Power by taking it from those that have it and giving it to those that have it not is without the Sphere of any Power which stands not by the Constitution of the Church For if the Church subsisted before any Secular Power was Christian by a Power vested by our Lord in
Preach continually so as to edifie the Church by their Preaching as it was for Apostles Apostolicall persons and Prophets is not for a reasonable man to imagine And those that stand so much upon Preaching twice every Lords Day would finde themselves at a marvellous exigent if they should prove either the necessity of it in point of Right by the Scriptures or the utility of it in point of Fact by the abilities of the men whom themselves set about it As for Prayer I yeeld that it is a Precept of God that the Prayers of Christian Congregations be presented to God by the Presbyters But what Prayers none but those which the Eucharist was celebrated with of which I spoke afore All the world will never shew any title in the Scriptures or the originall practice of the Church to prove that the Apostles ordained these prayers before or after the Sermons of Presbyters which are now made the greatest part of the exercise of Christianity unlesse it be because the Sermon went before the Eucharist as Acts XX. 7. 1 Cor. XIV 16. The Prayers which the Presbyters offer to God in behalf of the Church being by the institution of the Apostles onely those which the Eucharist is celebrated with I acknowledge that under the Apostles the Prayers of the Church were not prescribed but conceived by those that were emploied in that office by the Church But in consideration of the Propheticall Revelations and immediate inspirations which the persons emploied about that Office were then graced with to shew the truth of Christianity and the presence of God in the Church And therefore since those graces ceased I have shewed in the Apostolicall Form of Divine Service p. 348. that those Prayers of the Church which went not with the Eucharist were ministred by Deacons because it was found necessary that both the one and the other should be done in a prescript form to avoid the scandals of Christianity that we see come by referring it to all persons that are trusted to officiate publick service And I am astonished that any Christian should imagine that God should be pleased with the conceptions of the minde or expressions of the tongue setting aside the affection of the heart that any man prays with But now by the pretense on foot which makes the exercise of Christianity to consist in a Sermon and a Prayer conceived before or after it not onely the celebration of the Eucharist which the Apostles ordained to be as frequent as the Prayers of the Presbyters and which the Church of England recommends on all Sundaies and Festivals is turned out of doors to three or four times a year But also all the publick Service of God by Prayer Reading the Scriptures and the Praises of God forbidden when the Preachers mouth opens not And by referring the form of Prayer and matter of Doctrine to each mans discretion the exercise of Religion is turned into a Lecture of State infused into the conscience of the hearers by desiring of God the interesse of that faction for which a man Preaches And by this means they that doe challenge to themselves the title of Apostles when they style themselves Ministers of Christ and of the Gospel are now discovered by their adversaries of the Congregations to be Ministers of that Power which set them up as indeed they must needs be when a double number of Votes in their Presbyteries is able to cast them out of the Church if they prove not faithfull Ministers The ruine of Christianity is yet greater in going about to Reform Religion by the Sword and taking up Arms upon the Title of Christianity whether it be pretended or not For they that say that the Christians of Tertullians time would have defended themselves by force against the persecutions of the Romane Emperors if they had been able must needs say that Christians may and ought to defend themselves upon the Title of their Christianity As both Buchanane and Bellarmine by consequence must doe when they say that the reason why S. Paul commands Christians to be subject to the Secular Powers of his time was because they were not able to resist But I doe remember to have read in Burroughs his Lectures on Hoses which I speak to doe him right that the Title of this War is not grounded on Religion as Religion but as professed by this Kingdome Which I conceive cannot be said by those that advance the Covenant or allow two clauses of it The first when it promiseth to maintain the Kings person and estate in maintenance of Religion For if the maintenance of the State be limited within the condition of Religion then it is professed by consequence that the Soveraign Power of the State is not to be maintained when Religion is not maintained by it which if it did maintain Religion were to be maintained Therefore Religion is the ground upon which those that enter into the Covenant undertake to maintain one another without any exception in the maintenance of the same Therefore that War is made upon the Title of Religion which maintains not the State but in the maintenance of it The second when it faith that this is done that those which grone under the yoke of Antichrist may be moved to do the like Which belonging to the Subjects of Popish Princes professeth Religion to be the Title of those Arms which all of like Religion may use what ever the State be under which they live Now would I fain know of any friend of the Covenant What is the difference between it and the Holy League of France under Henry the third as to this point and in this regard There is indeed difference enough between the subjects in which the two Leagues suppose Religion to consist and there is as much in the Rule of the same which both suppose But as to the right which Religion introduceth of maintaining it self by force both Covenants agree in supposing it And thereby found temporall right upon the Grace of Christianity contrary to that which I presuppose from the beginning seeing whatsoever is purchased by such Arms is the production of that Title under which they are born True it is that Religion is not the onely Title of that League or this Covenant both of them pretending as well abuse in Government But it is to be considered on the other side that these two Titles are not subordinate but concurrent That is that this Right of maintaining Religion by force of Arms riseth from the truth of Religion in it self presupposed and not by the establishment of Religion by the Laws of any State for the Religion of the same Because not by that Power by which these Laws were made And therefore by consequence makes those that take Arms and joyn in Covenant supreme Judges of all that is questioned in Religion Which being of much more consideration to all Christians then the good estate of any Commonwealth though both Titles concurre in this War yet it
or spirituall Commonwealth by the Power of doing it Now the Law which is the condition upon which men are admitted to communicate with the Church is nothing else but the profession of Christianity upon which the Apostles of our Lord were first enabled to constitute Churches by baptizing them whom they should win to be Disciples according to the Commission of our Lord Mat. XXVIII 19. those onely being Disciples which undertook Christianity and therefore were afterwards called Christians being first called Disciples even after their Baptism Now Christianity consisting not onely in beleeving whatsoever our Lord Christ revealed but in the acknowledgement of an obligation to doe whatsoever he commanded it follows that this Law of Christianity consists of all Precepts of things to be beleeved and things to be done which our Lord Christ hath declared to his Church And not in these alone in regard that our Lord hath commanded Christianity not onely to be beleeved but also to be professed at the utmost perill of life and estate Therefore I said that the Law which is the condition of communicating with the Church is the profession of Christianity which entitleth to Baptism This profession seeing it cannot be made but to Christians that know what Christianity is and thereby are able to judge of the profession made how agreeable to Christianity of the person making the profession how sincerely how cordially he does it it followeth that the Power of the Church is committed to them that are trusted to judge of the profession of Christianity every one according to the Interesse which he justly pretendeth in that judgement Therefore is this Power called the Power of the Keys because it openeth the doore to the Communion of all Ordinances of Divine Service in the Church when it findeth the profession both agreeable to Christianity and to the heart life of him that makes it and shuts the same when it findeth things otherwise Therefore is it called the Power of remitting and retaining sinnes because God hath promised the free grace of remission of sins to all that make true profession of Christianity The benefit of which promise as it is good to him that makes such profession by virtue of his own act as to God so by virtue of the act that admits of the same it is good as to the Church Though it cannot be good as to God unlesse it be good also as to the Church by reason of the command of God that every Christian be a member of the Church For if it were morally possible that any man should attain to the knowlege and submit to the obedience of Christianity in such an estate of life and such Society of this World wherein it were not morally possible for him to hold Communion with the Church or those who in behalfe of the Church by the Laws of it are enabled to admit him to the Communion of the same by Baptism I would make no scruple to think that man in the state of salvation without Baptism or the Church And the same is to be said of all those that cannot be admitted to the Communion of the Church without professing or doing something contrary to Christianity which is the case of all that stand excommunicate upon unjust causes so that their Christianity obligeth them to communicate with no part of the true Church For seeing the Unity of the Church requires that he that is excommunicate to one part of the Church be excommunicate to all the Church seeing the Unity of the Whole cannot be preserved unlesse the Whole make good each act of the part which it hath power to doe it follows that he who is excommunicate for an unjust cause cannot with his Christianity communicate with any part of the Church his title to heaven remaining entire But this case ceasing the remission of sins depends upon the Church by reason of the profession of Christianity which as God requires every Christian to make so he enables the Church to admit And this is the Argument for the Power of Excommunication which is drawn from the Power of admitting to Baptism evidenced by divers Scriptures and divers particulars in the Primitive practice of the Church agreeable to the same And truly it was enough to point at some particulars for he that would undertake to produce all that is to be had in the records of the Church to depose for this reason and this right of the Church might easily fill great Volumes with nothing else Neverthelesse I will here adde one particular more because it seems this reason of the right and interesse of the Church is evidently seen in it And it will not require many allegations seeing it is a known Rule of the ancient Church that Clinicks should not be admitted to the Clergy alleged by Cornelius of Rome to Fabius of Antiochia in Eusebius Eccles Hist VI. 43. against Novatianus the Father of the Novatians to shew that he could not be Bishop of Rome in opposition to him being made Presbyter contrary to that Rule What was then the reason of this Rule and what were they that were called Clinicks It is very evident that there were very many in the Primitive times that beleeved Christianity but durst not professe it because it was no prejudice to beleeve it but to professe it so as to be baptized and come under the Discipline of the Church might be a matter of life and death in case of persecution Besides beleeving and not professing that is not pretending to Baptism they avoided the strictnesse of Ecclesiasticall Discipline What should the Church doe in the case of these men when they came to demand their Baptism undertaking the Rule of Christianity Surely as they could not utterly exclude them from the Church that had never offended or failed in that which they had undertook to it so of necessity they must stand at a greater distance to such persons as having their Christianity more in suspition then otherwise Wherefore in danger of death they were not to refuse them Baptism but in case they recovered again it was very reasonable that they which had attained their Baptism onely in consideration of the danger of death and must have given better triall of themselves otherwise before they were admitted should therefore stand so far suspected afterwards as not to be admitted to the Clergy which required a greater proficience in Christianity then that which qualified a man onely for Baptism These then are they which were called Clinici because they were baptized in bed as requiring their Baptism when they found themselves upon the bed of their sicknesse which might be that of their death And this is the reason of the Rule that they should not be admitted to the Clergy And by this reason the right and interesse of the Church is evident in admitting the profession of Christianity in those that thereby demanded to be admitted to Baptism In the next argument drawn from the Discipline of Penance it may be
his Angels as the XII Standards of Israel is camped without the Tabernacle which is the Church containing all Christians But the XII Apostles and LXX Disciples must needs be understood to hold correspondence with the XII Heads of the Tribes and LXX Elders And the whole reason and ground of this correspondence to consist in the whole Power of governing the spirituall Israel of God which is his Church to remain in their hands as the Rulers and as the Counsell thereof while it was altogether in one Body from thence to be propagated into the like when it came to be divided into severall Bodies by the founding of severall Churches as you have seen that it was among the Jews in Palestine Aegypt and Babylonia Wherefore as there can no question be made that the Jews by virtue of Gods Law created themselves that Government which they established in their dispersions by sufferance of their Soveraigns according to the form designed by the Law by a Consistory in the Mother Cities of their dispersions with inferiour Consistories where the number of Jews was so great as to require a form of Government No more can it be doubted that when Churches were founded in the greatest Residences concurring with Churches founded in the like and depending on those of the Mother Cities for the maintenance of Unity in the Whole all this though executed by humane discretion was done by virtue of the Rule designed by the Apostles And as all Israel had no power to adde or take from the Law yet was to be concluded in that which the Law had not determined by the Consistory so all the Church having no Power to make any thing of divine Right that was not so from the beginning hath Power to determine what the Church shall either do or acknowledge for the preservation of Unity in it self in all matters not determined by Divine Right As for the Priests Office from which most men desire to derive the preeminences of the Clergy although it were manifestly peculiar to Israel after the flesh and to cease with the same seeing the Church hath no other Sacrifice but that one of Christ upon the Crosse not repeated but represented continually by the Prayers of the Church at the celebration of the Eucharist as the reason which must make all those Prayers effectuall by the peculiar Covenant of Christianity it follows that those that are intrusted with the Government and maintenance of Christianity are by consequence intrusted with the offering of this Sacrifice and of these Prayers of the Church unto God by the same reason for the which I said afore that the Consecration of the Eucharist floweth frō the Power of the Keys So that whether they be called Elders or Priests they have both denominations from the quality of Presbyters Seeing then that the Apostles are by their Commission the XII Patriarchs of the spirituall Israel of God which is his Church and so the Chief Governours of the same let not the Presbyterians imagine that they can degrade them to the rank of their buckram Elders or shew us what particulars mentioned in the Scriptures the Apostles acted as Apostles and what as Elders as that they concurred in the Councell at Jerusalem in the common quality of Elders unlesse they can produce other Scriptures of other Apostles superiour to these that appoint it All these recording the acts of chief Governours of the whole Church as founders of it by their Originall Commission and Lawgivers to it in whatsoever our Lord had not determined afore And though their proceedings are throughout a pattern of meeknesse and condescension to all ranks in the Church using their Power with that humility which our Lord had commanded to his Chief Disciples to give satisfaction to all of the reasonablenesse of their proceedings because there was then just presumption that others would use the like reverence to them in receiving satisfaction as they in tendring it yet by S. Paul to the Corinthians we see how far it reached when any pretense opposed it self against it Suppose now for the purpose that Barnabas was one of the LXX as Epiphanius affirms shall we indure it to be affirmed that when he is sent by the Church at Jerusalem to Antiochia Acts XI 20. he is sent by the appointment of certain of the people who had a Commission from our Lord before they were Christians even for the founding of that Church wherein they who are thought to send then received Christianity Surely the Commission of our Lord Mat. XXVIII 18 extendeth to the LXX as well as to the XII though in dependence on them as the XII Princes of Israel And therefore as it is manifest that Barnabas was sent to Antiochia because those that had made Christians at Antiochia had not power to found a Church there by ordering their Assemblies which Barnabas is said there to have done so is it manifest that he could not receive this power from the people of the Church at Jerusalem which may better challenge it then any Lay Elders whose Title must come from the People as I have shewed Chap III. and will shew by Gods help by and by more at large but that he must be understood to be sent by the Church because by the XII and by the LXX with the consent and concurrence of the Clergy and People And sent so to order a new plantation of the spirituall Israel that notwithstanding one of those that sent him taking the charge afterwards into his own hands might become Patriarch of that Tribe which should be planted in and under that City As also Barnabas himself to become the Head of another plantation in Cyprus or Paul who by virtue of the Power received by Barnabas at Jerusalem was by him assumed to his assistance being afterwards acknowledged to be called by God into the rank of the XII to become a Patriarch of those plantations which received Christianity by his means And thus it is no inconvenience which some of the Fathers have incurred by affirming that the XII have the rank of Bishops and the LXX of Presbyters if we refer them to the whole Church not to any particular Church but onely by correspondence For so were the XII Patriarchs to the people of Israel as the LXX were Presbyters and Elders to the same as I said of the Consistory Every part of the Church planted in and under any City having neverthelesse according to one and the same form a Ruler of a Bishop and a Councell of Presbyters And yet is it nothing inconvenient in another regard that the Councell of Neocaesarea Can. XIII compares Country Bishops to the LXX the City Bishops being by correspondence consequently compared to the XII Because on the one side those Country Bishops were to be subordinate to the Bishops of their Cities as the LXX were to the XII On the other side the LXX being answerable to the LXX Elders of Israel must needs be understood to be of a higher quality
then common Presbyters CHAP. III. THat it is no new reason that here is rendred p. 91. why the name of Episcopus under the Apostles was common to those that are since distinctly called Bishops and Presbyters may appear by a passage in Amalarius de divinis Officiis quoted out of the supposed S. Ambrose upon the Epistles produced by Salmasius In Apparatu quia beatis Apostolis decedentibus illi qui post illos ordinati sunt ut praeessent Ecclesiis illis primis exaequari non poterant neque miraculorum testimonium par illis habere sed in multis aliis inferiores illis esse videbantur grave illis videbatur Apostolorum sibi vendicare nuncupationem Diviserunt ergo nomina ipsa iisdem Presbyterorum nomen reliquerunt alii verò Episcopi sunt nuncupati hique Ordinationis praediti potestate ita ut plenissimè iidem praepositos se Ecclesiarum esse cognoscerent This is manifestly the very reason that I insist upon For saith he because the blessed Apostles deceasing those that were ordained to be over Churches after them could not be equalled to those first nor attain to the like grace of miracles but appeared to be beneath them in many other things it seemed too much for them to challenge to themselves the name of Apostles Hereupon they divided the names and left them the name of Presbyters and the others were called Bishops and they endowed with the Power of Ordaining that they might know themselves to be set over the Churches in the fullest right I marvell what pleasure Salmasius had to allege this passage which if it be admitted is enough alone to overthrow all that he hath said in this point For first he supposeth as the received Doctrine of the Church that Bishops in their severall Churches succeeded the Apostles Secondly he answers all S. Hieromes reasons to prove that Bishops and Presbyters are all one because they are called by the same name in the Scriptures by giving another reason even that which you have here Lastly he saith that Bishops are set over their Churches plenissimè in the fullest right and that therefore Ordination was reserved to them which is to say that in all things they have a speciall Interesse but especially Ordination is their peculiar And with this reason agrees Theodoret when he says that at such time as the name of Bishops was common to Presbyters those who were called Bishops afterwards were called Apostles extending the name of Apostles to others besides the Apostles of Christ This is then a sufficient reason why the name of Bishops should be afterwards appropriated to that rank wherein they succeed the Apostles and Evangelists in their respective Churches because they could not be called by the same which their predecessors had born though formerly common both to Bishops and Presbyters And this is the meaning of those words of S. Augustine which seemed difficult in the Councell of Trent because the opinion which derived all the power of Bishops from the Pope was so strong there Etsi secundum honorum vocabula quae jam Ecclesiae usus obtinuit Episcopatus Presbyterio major sit in multis tamen Augustinus Episcopus Hieronyme Presbyters minor est Let not the humility of S. Augustine be drawn into consequence and the property of his words shall enforce no more then I say He knew well enough how stiffely S. Hierome had argued that a Bishop and a Priest is all one in the terms of divine Right because the name of Episcopus is attributed to Presbyters by the Apostles Is it to be presumed that S. Augustine acknowledges this to be his own opinion because it is plain he intends not to crosse S. Hierome in it having other differences with him afore On the contrary it hath been shewed by other passages of his writings that his opinion was otherwise To use therefore that civility which his meeknesse prompted him to condescend to S. Hierome with he granteth his premises neither refusing nor admitting the consequence saying Though according to the titles of honour which now have prevailed in the Church a Bishop be greater then a Presbyter notwithstanding in many things Jerome the Priest is greater then Augustine the Bishop Where by naming the titles of Honour which now have prevailed in the Church he insinuates the reason for which I here maintain that they were thus distinguished afterwards and therefore supposes the ground of it Otherwise he might as easily have granted S. Hieromes consequence and pleased him more And yet I conceive that when he says a Priest may be greater then a Bishop it may very well be admitted not onely as a condescension of humility but as an expression of truth not onely in respect of learning or other personall considerations but of authority in the Church by reason of the dependence of Churches here premised The state and government of Churches is very properly compared by Origen contra Celsum VII to the State of Greekish Commonalties the Bishop bearing the place of the Magistrate and the Bench of Presbyters of the Senate as I have hitherto compared them to the Jews Consistories and as Pope Pius in his Epistle to Justus of Vienna calls the Presbytery of the Church at Rome Pauperem Senatum Christi in Vrbe Româ The poore Senate of Christ in the City of Rome In this estate and condition the eminence of the Bishop above the Presbyters is visible though not by the humility of Pope Pius who perhaps comprises both Bishop and Presbyters in the same quality of a Senate yet by the comparison of Origen the eminence of the Magistrate above his Councell in all Commonalties being so visible as it is But when congregations come to be distinguished as well as Churches and a greater flock assigned to some Presbyters then to Bishops in other parts of the Church and those Presbyters to doe all Offices to their Flock which those Bishops did saving that they depended on the City Church whereas those Bishops depended onely on the Church of the Mother City and therefore had Power to make Ordinations within their own Churches which Presbyters never could doe what hinders in this case I say not S. Augustine for I suppose he names himself but for an instance being indeed Bishop of an eminent City to be lesse then S. Hierome but some Bishop to be lesse then some Priest even for his lawfull authority in the Church A consideration of great consequence to the right constitution of Councels especially the most Generall and for which there is not wanting a valuable reason intimated in the proceedings of divers of the ancient Councels of the Church that is that the Church cannot be reasonably concluded by number of present votes as the Councell of Trent imposes upon us but by the consideration of Christian Nations and Provinces of the Church represented in those Councels For as we see that in the ancient Councels a few Bishops were many times admitted to act in behalf of their
wherein he is thought so plainly to determine that Clergy men are uncapable of imploiment in Secular affairs whereof here p. 268. be it but to shew how mens trust is abused when they examine not such allegations I grant these are his words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that to joyn Civile skill with the Priesthood is to spin two wools together that will not make one thred I grant he saith that the Aegyptians and Hebrews had once Priests for their Kings But that God parted them because his work was done with humane weaknesse But shall I count that to be against Gods Law in Synesius his opinion which he counts those Bishops happy that could goe through with which he himself declares that he was not desirous to lay aside from his own care which he desires a coadjutor to be joyned with him to assist him in The case was this It was a part of the Bishops Office as still it ought to be to intercede with the civile Powers for favour to all charitable causes For among the ancient People of God it was the Prophets Office who may well be called the Preachers of Christianity during that time as you see 2 Kings IV. 12. and therefore of duty belongs to the chief Doctors of it now In the Africane Canons it is divers times provided that it belong to the Bishops charge Synesius finding himselfe foiled in the execution hereof by Andronicus makes a proposition to his Church that he may have one to assist him in it that he might not be diverted from his Priestly Office for it intending notwithstanding to attend it himself as he should find opportunity so to doe Is this the proposition of one that thought it against Gods Law for a Bishop or Clergy man to doe it For certainly the coadjutor which he desires must be understood to be a Clergy man because it is the Interesse of the Church in which he is to act Whereupon the Church proceeds there to Excommunication because wronged in it by Andronicus So likewise S. Augustine may complain of the multitude of businesse which diverted him from more spirituall imploiment to end the sutes of Christians which then resorted to the Bishop But did S. Augustine think it against Gods Law that he should be exercised in it and yet continue in that exercise That is the point here questioned whether against Gods Law or according to it as for the point of expedience I dispute it not here though if Synesius be against that a man may very well say to his reasons that for any man to act in Secular matters towards an Interesse of power or profit is a thing inconsistent with the Priesthood which is to act towards the Interesse of Christianity And therefore God hath parted all such imploiment from the Government of his Church But that the Rulers of Christianity should act in the Interesse of Christianity and to the advantage thereof in Secular especially in publick affairs is that which all parties now declare to be well done when it is done by Law by doing it themselves without Law The distance between Civile and Military imploiment among the Romanes whereof p. 271. appears by the provision introduced by the Emperours in favour of Soldiers that their last Wils should be good though made without the Solemnities of Law Which the Laws themselves ff de Testam Milit. l. 1. Instit ead VI. declare was provided in regard to the simplenesse or innocence of Soldiers that is because of the ignorance in the Laws proceeding from that strict attendance upon their Colours to which Soldiers stood obliged all the time of their service which was with most of them the greatest part of their lives It is not my purpose to say that the Clergy are not to be so constant to the service of the Church as Soldiers to their Colours But that the service of the Church when the State is Christian requires not that distance from Civile businesse as the service of the Wars among the Romanes If the service of the Church consisted onely in Preaching it would be much otherwise But if the service of the Church consist in the maintenance and advancement of Christianity then neither can the Clergy understand wherein consists the Interesse of Christianity without understanding the affairs of the world wherein it is seen neither can they act towards the maintenance and advancement thereof without understanding it Wherefore though it appear not onely by S. Cyprian but by Can. Apost LXXX LXXXII and others that when States were not Christian the Clergy were forbidden Secular businesse yet when the State is Christian to forbid it were to forbid the means of maintaining Christianity in the dispatching of such businesse To that which is acknowledged p. 273. c. V. that no part of the Church can be concluded but by the Act of the Synod respective to it I adde further that the Act thereof cannot passe but by the greater part of it For unlesse the consent of the Whole follow the consent of the greater part in doing those Acts which must oblige the Church as in making Canons and Ordinations it cannot appear how the precept of the Apostles of obeying the present Rulers of the Church is neglected in any Schism that is effected by any part of them and by consequence there would be no such crime as that of Schisme in any such case As for example in the case of the Church of Corinth upon which the Epistle of Clemens was written and sent which he declares p. 62. when he says that it is much a shame for the profession of Christians that the ancient Church of Corinth should maintain a faction against the Presbyters for one or two persons to wit of the same rank of Presbyters as we must needs understand it When therefore both sides follow some of the Rulers of the Church how should Schism be incurred if by that precept the lesser part were not obliged to be concluded by the greater in things not determined by Gods Law So in the Ordination of Novatianus how shall it be taken for Schismaticall being done by three Bishops unlesse we grant that the lesser part is to be concluded by the greater under the pain of incurring the crime of Schism Thus that which is here propounded p. 249 250. proceedeth upon the same ground with that which followeth p. 314 315. which to confirm I adde here a memorable passage out of the said Epistle of Clemens whose Doctrine being received from the very mouthes of the Apostles must needs be accounted their own Thus then Clemens p. 54. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 so it must be read and not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Our Apostles received the Gospel from the Lord Jesus Christ Jesus Christ from God And so Christ was sent forth from God and the Apostles from Christ Thus both were orderly done by the will of God Having therefore received instructions and being assured by the resurrection of our Lord
to Baptize such as should submit to the Gospel And so to judge whether each man did so or not which they that were trusted with the Gospel were by consequence trusted to judge The effect of this trust is seen in the many Orders and Canons of the Primitive Church by which those that desired to be admitted into the Church by Baptisme are limited to the triall of severall years to examine their profession whether sincere or not And such as gained their living by such Trades as Christianity allowed not rejected untill they renounced them Not that my intent is to say that these Canons were limited by the Apostles But because it is an argument that always to judge who shall be admitted to Baptisme and who not is another manner of power then to baptize being the power of them that were able to settle such Canons Though it is plain by the Scriptures that those Rules had their beginning from the Apostles themselves For when S. Peter saith 1 Pet. III. 21. that the Baptisme which saveth us is not the laying down the filth of the flesh but the examination of a good conscience to God 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 he sheweth that the Interrogatories which the ancient Church used to propound to them that were to be baptized were then in use and established by the Apostles as the condition of a contract between the Church and them obliging themselves to live according to the Gospel as Disciples And the Apostle Heb. VI. 2. speaking of the foundation of repentance from dead works the doctrine of Baptisms and imposition of Hands manifestly shews the succeeding custome of the Church that they which sued for Baptisme should be catechized in the Doctrine of the Gospel and contract with the Church to forsake such courses of the world as stood not with it to be brought in by the Apostles This is it which is here called the doctrine of Baptisms in the plurall number not for that frantick reason which the distemper of this time hath brought forth because there are two Baptismes one of John by water another of Christ by the Spirit but because it was severally taught severall persons before they were admitted to their several Baptisms And therefore called also the Doctrine of Imposition of Hands because we understand by Clemens Alexandrinus Paedag. III. 11. and by the Apostolicall Constitutions VII 40. that when they came to the Church to be catechized and were catechized they were then dismissed by him that catechized them with Imposition of Hands that is with prayer for them that they might in due time become good Christians All visible marks of the power of the Church in judging whether a man were fit for Baptisme or not To which I will adde onely that of Eusebius De vitâ Constant IV. where speaking of the Baptisme of Constantine he saith 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that confessing his sinnes hee was admitted to prayer with Imposition of hands If it be said that there were added to the Church three thousand in a day Acts II. 41. which could not be thus catechized and tried my answer is that two cases were always excepted from the Rule The first was in danger of death The second when by the eagernesse of those that desired Baptism the hand of God appeared extraordinary in the work of their conversion to Christianity Besides it is not said that they were baptized that day but that they were added to the Church that day Which is true though they onely professed themselves Disciples for the present passing neverthelesse their examination and instruction as the case required If therefore there be a power setled in the Church by God to judge who is fit to be admitted into it then is the same power inabled to refuse him that shall appear unfit then by the same reason to exclude him that proves himself unfit after he is admitted This is the next argument which I will ground upon the Discipline of Penance as it was anciently practised in the Church Which is opened by the observation advanced in the 127 p. of this little Discourse that those who contrary to this contract with the Church fell into sins destructive to Christianity were fain to sue to be admitted to Penance Which supposeth that till they had given satisfaction of their sincerity in Christianity they remained strangers to the Communion of the Church For it appeareth by the most ancient of Church Writers that for divers ages the greatest Sinners as Apostates Murtherers Adulterers were wholly excluded from Penance For though Tertullian was a Montanist when he cried out upon Zephyrinus Bishop of Rome for admitting Adulterers to Penance in his Book De Pudicitiâ yet it is manifest by his case that it had formerly been refused in the Church because the granting of it makes him a Montanist And S. Cyprian Epist ad Antonianum testifieth that divers African Bishops afore him had refused it maintaining communion neverthelesse with those that granted it Irenaeus also I. 9. saith of a certain woman that had been seduced and defiled by Marcus the Heretick that after she was brought to the sight of her sin by some Christians she spent all her days in bewalling it Therefore without recovering the communion of the Church again And he that shall but look upon the Canons of the Eliberitane Councell shall easily see many kindes of sins censured some of them not to be admitted to communion till the point others not at the point of death In this case and in this estate these onely who were excluded from being admitted to Penance were properly excommunicate neither could those that were admitted to Penance be absolutely counted so because in danger of death they were to receive the Communion though in case they recovered they stood bound to compleat their Penance And from hence afterwards also those that had once been admitted to Penance if they fell into the like sins again were not to be admitted to Penance the second time Concil Tolet. X. Can. XI Eliber Can. III. VII Ambros de Poenit. II. 10 11. Innoc. I. Ep. I. August Epist L. LIV. It is an easie thing to say that this Rigor was an infirmity in the Church of those times not understanding aright free Justification by Faith But as it is manifest that this rigor of discipline abated more and more age by age till that now it is come to nothing So if we goe upwards and compare the writings of the Apostles with the Originall practice of the Church it will appear that the rigor of it was brought in by them because it abated by degrees from age to age till at length it is almost quite lost that the Reformation of the Church consists in retaining it that we shall doe so much prejudice to Christianity as we shall by undue interpretation make Justification by Faith inconsistent with it And in fine it will appear that all Penance presupposeth Excommunication being onely some abatement of it There
is a sin unto death saith the Apostle 1 John V. 16. I say not that ye pray for it This is commonly understood of denying Gods truth against that light which convinceth the conscience Which if it were true the Apostles precept could never come into practice seeing no man can know unlesse by Revelation against what light his Neighbour sinneth But the Novatians at the Councell of Nice as Socrates and Sozomenus both report Eccles Hist I. 7. I. 23. answering Constantine that they refused Penance onely to those that sinned the sin unto death doe give us to understand that S. John was understood by the Church not to command that Apostates be admitted to Penance And so also Tertullian in many places of his Book de Pudicit as cap. XIV argueth from this place that Penance was not to be granted to Adulterers Which sheweth that the Church understood the place in the same sense though it admitted not his consequence So also Origen in Mat. XVIII 18. Tract VII I was long doubtful of the truth of this Interpretation because the Apostle premising If any man see his brother sin a sin not unto death let him ask of God seems to speak of private Prayers of particular persons But the words of S. James V. 16. have cleared me of this doubt Confesse your sins one to another saith he and pray for one another that ye may be healed In which words I make no doubt but he speaketh of publique Penance For having premised that the Presbyters be sent for to the sick that they confesse their sins to the Presbyters that they pray for them anointing them with oil that their sins may be forgiven them to shew neverthelesse that according to the custome aforesaid in case they recovered they were to stand bound to Penance he addeth Confesse your sins to one another to signifie that this Confession and Penance remained due before the Church as we understand by the XII Canon of Nice that the practice was so long afterwards And this is proved by the precept of both Apostles to pray for one another For it is manifest that there were two means to obtain remission of sins in this case the Humiliation which the Church prescribed and the Penitent performed and the Prayers of the Church Which S. John prescribeth not to be granted to Apostates The very same is the meaning of the Apostle to the Hebrews VI. 6. when he pronounceth it unpossible that those that fall away be renued again to Repentance For as they that stood for Baptisme when they were catechized in Christianity were properly said 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to be instructed or dedicated to Repentance because of the Repentance from dead works which they professed so they that forfeited their Christianity by violating the contract of Baptisme are no lesse properly said 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to be renewed instructed and dedicated again to Repentance And the Apostles reason agrees For because the earth that receives rain and renders no fruit is near the curse therefore the Church will not easily beleeve that such a one shall lightly obtain of God the grace to become a sincere Christian And therefore the Apostle says not that it is unpossible that such a one should repent but that he should be instructed again to repentance to wit by the Church As the Novatians answered Constantine that they remitted such persons to God not prejudicing their salvation but not admitting them to the means of Reconciliation by the Church And herewith agreeth the example of Esau used by the Apostle again XII 17. saying that he found not place of Repentance alluding to that roome in the Church where Penitents were placed apart by themselves And again X. 26. the allusion which he maketh to the custome under the Law understood by the Hebrews to whom he writeth consisteth in this that as there was no sacrifice to be made for Apostates though for Ethnicks for this was the use of the Law as we understand by Moses Maimoni in the Title of Dressing Oblations cap. III. num 3 5. So the Christian Sacrifice of the Prayers of the Church was not to be offered for those that had renounced Christianity If it be thus you will ask What was the fault of the Novatians seeing they understood this Text right And my answer is that neverthelesse they are Hereticks extending the name of Hereticks to those whom now we call Schismaticks as I have shewed you in the little Discourse pag. 197. that it is often used For S. John as he commands not so he forbids not that they be admitted to Penance the other Apostle tels them it is impossible to let them know that they must not expect it But neither says that the Church could not give it When therefore the Church to preserve Unity was necessitated to grant it as we see by S. Cyprian the Novatians were no lesse Schismaticks in making separation upon the quarrell though perhaps the reason be not urged by their adversaries then if they had understood the Text amisse The Unity of the Church being of more moment then much understanding in the Scriptures And so perhaps S. Pauls words will belong to this purpose 1 Tim. 5. 19. as not onely the Socinians of late but Pacianus among the Ancients Paraen ad Poenitentiam and Matthaeus Galenus among modern Writers do expound them To wit that when he saith Lay hands suddenly on no men nor partake of other mens sins he leaves it to Timothies judgement whom to admit whom not to admit to Penance Because this Blessing with Imposition of hands was not the mark of Absolution but of admission to Penance as well as the ceremony of Ordinations And though this Text of the Apostle be understood in particular of Ordinations yet by the same reason which he allegeth it is to be extended to all Acts of the Church that are blessed by the Prayers of the Church with Imposition of Hands For if Timothy by Imposing hands upon those whom he Ordains become accessary to their sins if they be unfit to be Ordained by the same reason if he Impose Hands that is grant Penance unto them that are not fit for it he becomes accessory to the sins which they commit by being admitted to it Imposition of Hands being nothing else but a ceremony of that Benediction which signifieth that those Acts to which it is granted are allowed and authorized by the publique Power of the Church So Imposition of Hands in Confirmation is the admission of him that is confirmed to the communion of the Visible Church In Penance the restoring of him In Ordination to the exercise of this or that function in the Church Prayer over the sick which the Apostle commands James V. 14. and our Lord in the Gospel made with Imposition of Hands signified the admitting of the sick to Penance And it is said that in some Eastern Churches to this day mariages are blessed with Imposition of Hands in signification that the Church
alloweth of them which as it was alwayes the right of the Church to doe as I shall observe in another place so it appeareth so to be in that mariage was never celebrated among Christians without the Prayers of the Church And this observation I insist upon the more chearfully because it much strengtheneth the argument which the Church maketh for the Baptism of Infants from the Act of our Saviour in the Gospel when he blessed the Infants with Imposition of Hands For if all Imposition of Hands be an act of the publique Power of the Church allowing that which is done with it then can this Imposition of Hands signifie no lesse then that those to whom our Lord granteth it belong to his Kingdome of the Visible Church One little objection there lies against this from the incestuous person at Corinth whom S. Paul in his second Epistle seems to readmit to communion his crime being as deep as Adultery which we say the rigor of Apostolicall Discipline admitted not to Penance To which I have divers things to answer That this cannot be objected but by him that acknowledges that he was excommunicate by the former Epistle That Tertullian in his Book de Pudicitiâ disputes at large that it is not the same case which is spoken of in both Epistles That the crime here specified perhaps is not of the number of those which from the beginning were excluded from Penance But waving all this as I excepted two cases in which men were baptized without regular triall so supposing the Rule to take hold in this case it is no inconvenience to grant that S. Paul might wave the rigor of Discipline so setled as supposing there might be cause to wave it If this opinion seem new my purpose requires but these two Points that the Penance practised by the ancient Church supposed Excommunication which it only abateth and that it was instituted by the Apostles and for that there is enough said I suppose even to them that beleeve not that the Apostles excluded any kinde of crimes from Penance Besides that of S. Paul blaming the Corinthians that they were puffed up and had not rather lamented that he that had done the evil might be put from among them 1 Cor. V. 2. And again fearing that when he returned he should be forced to lament many 2 Cor. XII 21. Which if we compare with the Primitive solemnity of Excommunication which by the constitutions of the Apostles II. 16. and other ways we understand was to put the person out of the Church doors with mourning it will appear that Epiphanius is in the right in expounding this later Text to this purpose Haer. LIX num 5. The power of Excommunication then by all this is no more then the necessary consequence of the Power of admitting to Communion by Baptism Which if it imply a contract with the Church to live according to the rule of Christianity then it is forfeit to him that evidently does that which cannot stand with that rule and the Church not tied to restore it but as the person can give satisfaction to observe it for the future Now I will make short work with Erastus his long labour to prove that there is no Excommunication commanded by the Law I yeeld it And make a consequence which will be thought a strange one But I have it from the speculation of Origen in Levit Hom. XI and others why the Church should onely be inabled to Excommunicate whereas the Synagogue was inabled to put to death From the observation of S. Augustine Quaest in Deuteronom V. 38. de Fide Operibus cap. VI. and others that Excommunication in the Church is the same that the power of life and death in the Synagogue My argument is then that the Church is to have the power of Excommunication because the Synagogue had the power of life and death And the reason of the consequence this Because as the Law being the condition of the Covenant by which the benefit of the Commonwealth of Israel was due inabled to put to death such as destroyed it So the Gospel being the condition of the Covenant that makes men denizons of the spirituall Jerusalem must inable to put them from the society thereof that forfeited it It is not my intent hereby to say that there was no Excommunication under the Law For I doe beleeve that we have mention of it in Ezra X. 8. grounded if I mistake not upon the Commission of the King of Persia recorded Ezr. VII 26. for that which is here called rooting out seems to be the same that is called in the other place dividing from the Synagogue of the Captives Being indeed a kinde of temporall Outlawry to which is joined confiscation of Goods For so saith Luther truly that the greater Excommunication among Christians is every where a temporall punishment to wit in regard of some temporall punishment attending it in Christian States which in Christianity is accidentall by Act of those States in Judaisme essentiall so long as those temporall advantages which were the essentiall condition of the Law were not forfeited And this without doubt is the same punishment which the Gospels call putting out of the Synagogue Though I cannot say so peremptory for the temporall effects of it Which severall Soveraigns could easily limit to severall terms For the right that Ezra might have to introduce this penalty is clear by the Law of Deut. XVII 12. which inabling to put them to death that obeyed not the Synagogue inabled to Excommunicate to Banish to Outlaw them much more But as we see the Romanes allowed them not the power of life and death which the Persians granted them so I am not to grant that putting out of the Synagogue in the Gospel implieth the extinguishing of the civill being of any Jew The Talmud Doctors say that those that were under the greater Excommunication were to dwell in a cotage alone and to have meat and drink brought them till they died Arba Turim or Shulchan Auroh in Jore Dea Hilcoth Niddui Voherem A speculation sutable to their condition in their dispersions which no man is bound to beleeve how far it was in force and practice But suppose the Synagogue in the same condition with the Church afore Constantine injoying no privilege but to serve God according to the Law as the Church according to the Gospel And then as the Synagogue must always have power to excommunicate which had power to put to death so I say is the Church inabled by our Lord to doe what I have shewed the Apostles did doe by Mat. XVIII 18. I yeeld that the terms of binding and loosing are used by the Jews to signifie the declaring of what is prohibited and permitted by the Law But I yeeld not that it can be so understood here because the ground of this declaration ceaseth under the Gospel being derived from the sixe hundreth and thirteen Precepts of the Law and from the power
of the Priests and Doctors to determine all cases which the Law had not determined in dependence upon the great Consistory at Jerusalem by the Law of Deut. XVII 12. which Precepts and which Power being voided by the Gospel can any man think that the Power of binding and loosing here given the Church is to be understood of it Besides it is in the promise made to S. Peter Mat. XVI 19. said expresly to be the act of the Power of the Keys And what is that Is it not an expression manifestly borrowed from that which is said to Eliakim sonne of Hilkiah Es XXII 23. I will give thee the Keys of the House of David Whereupon our Lord Apoc. III. 7. is said to have the Key of David that is of the House of David whereby the Apostles under our Lord are made Stewards of the Church as Eliakim of the Court to admit and exclude whom he pleased And so it is manifest that the Power of the Keys given S. Peter Mat. XVI 19. as the Church Mat. XVIII 18. is that power which you have seen practised under the Apostles of admitting to and excluding from the Church by Baptism and Penance So S. Cyprian expresly understandeth the Power of the Keys to consist in Baptizing Ep. LXXIII And of Penance that which followeth is an expresse argument as I have observed p. 129. of that short Discourse For having said whatsoever ye binde he addeth immediately again I say to you that if two of you agree to ask any thing it shall be done you by my Father in heaven For the means of pardon being the Humiliation of the Penitent injoined by the Church and joined with the prayers thereof as hath been said the consequence of our Saviours discourse first of informing the Church then of binding and loosing lastly of granting the prayers of the Church shews that he speaks of those prayers which should be made in behalf of such as were bound for not hearing the Church And hereby we see how binding loosing of sins is attributed to the Keys of the Church Which being made a Visible Society by the power of holding Assemblies to which no man is to be admitted till there be just presumption that he is of the heavenly Jerusalem that is above As the power of judging who is and who is not thus qualified presupposes a profession so that an Instruction obliging the obedience of them which seek remission of sinnes by the Gospel and therefore confidently assuring it to them which conform themselves In a word because admitting to and excluding from the Church is or ought to be a just and lawfull presumption of admitting to or excluding from heaven it is morally and legally the same Act that intitleth to heaven and to the Church that maketh an heir of life everlasting and a Christian because he that obeyeth the Church in submitting to the Gospel is as certainly a member of the invisible as of the visible Church Herewith agree the words of our Lord Let him be unto thee as a Heathen and a Publican Not as if Heathens could be excommunicate the Synagogue who never were of it or as if the Jews then durst excommunicate Publicanes that levied Taxes for the Romanes But because by their usage of Publicanes and Gentiles it was proper for our Lord to signifie how he would have Christians to use the excommunicate there being no reason why he can be thought by these words to regulate the conversation of the Jews in that estate so long as the Law stood but to give his Church Rules to last till the worlds end The Jews then abhorred the company not onely of Idolaters to testifie how much they abhorred Idols and to maintain the people in detestation of them by ceremonies brought in by the Guides of the Synagogue for that purpose but all those that conversed with Idolaters For this cause we see they murmure against our Lord for eating with Publicans they wash when they come from market where commonly they conversed with Gentiles and which is strange such as Cornelius was being allowed to dwell among them by the Law professing one God and taking upon them the precepts of the sons of Noe yet are the converted Jews scandalized at S. Peter for eating with Cornelius Acts XI 2. These Rules are made void by the Gospel For S. Paul tells the Corinthians expresly that they are not to forbear the company of Gentiles for those sinnes which their Profession imported but if a Christian live in any of those Heathen vices with him they are not so much as to eate 1 Cor. V. 11. to wit as it followeth immediately being condemned by the Church upon such a cause For saith he What have I to doe to judge them that are without do not ye judge those that are within But those that are without God judgeth And ye shall take the evill man from among you That is are not you by the power you have of judging those that are within to take away him that hath done evill leaving to God to judge those without Here the case is plain there is power in the Church to judge and take away offenders Of which power the Apostle speaks Tit. III. 9. when he says that Hereticks are condemned of themselves if we follow S. Hieromes exposition which seems unquestionable For experience convinces that most Hereticks think themselves in the right so farre they are from condemning themselves in their consciences But they condemne themselves by cutting of themselves from the Church which other sinners are condemned to by the Church Neither is it any thing else then Excommunication which the Apostle signifieth by delivering to Satan 1 Cor. V. 6. saving that he expresseth an extraordinary effect that followed it in the Apostles time to wit that those which were put out of the Church became visibly subject to Satan inflicting Plagues and diseases on their bodies which might reduce them to repentance which the Apostle calleth the destruction of the flesh that the spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus As he saith of Hymenaeus and Philetus 1 Tim. I. 21. whom I have delivered to Satan that they may learn not to blaspheme For it is not to be doubted that the Apostles had power like that which S. Peter exercised on Ananias and Sapphira thus to punish those that opposed them as S. Paul divers times intimates in the Texts which I have quoted in another place provided by God as the rest of miraculous Graces to evidence his presence in the Church These particulars which I huddle up together by the way might have been drawn out into severall arguments but I content my self with the consequence by which the Patent of this Power in the Gospel is cleared upon which Patent all the Power of the Church is grounded That is if Christians are onely to abstain from eating with excommunicate persons as Jews did with Publicanes and Gentiles then Excommunication is to be understood when
our Lord saith Let him be to thee as a Heathen and a Publicane As for that which is said that the excommunicate among the Jews were not excluded either Temple or Synagogue therefore it was a secular punishment It is a mistake That which the Jews call 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 was not Excommunication no more then that which the Constitutions of the Apostles call 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which is the same being but a step to it like that which is now commonly called the lesse Excommunication And therefore he that was under this censure among the Jews was but in part removed from the communion as well of sacred as civill society For it hath been shewed very learnedly in the Book of the Power of the Keyes that hee stood as much removed from the one as from the other because that as well in the Synagogue as at home no man was to come within his four cubits But when the Talmud Doctors determine that the excommunicate dwell in a Cotage apart and have sustenance brought him such a one was past comming into the Temple or Synagogue And so I suppose was he that was put out of the Synagogue for acknowledging our Lord Christ to be a true Prophet John IX 35. For they which afterwards were wont to curse all his followers in their Synagogues as Justin Martyr Dial. cum Tryph. and Epiphanius Haer. XXX tell us that they did in their time are not like to endure in their society whether sacred or civill him that in their interpretation was fallen from Moses And thus is the Power of the Keys clearly grounded upon this Charter of the Gospel and all the Right of the Church upon it Onely one Objection yet remains which to me hath always seemed very difficult for it is manifest that our Lord speaketh here of matters of interesse between party and party when he saith If thy brother offend thee and it may justly seem strange that our Lord should give the Church power to excommunicate those that will not stand to the sentence of the Church in such matters But so it is The Jews in their dispersions were fain to have recourse to this penalty to inforce the Jurisdiction of their own Bodies lest if causes should be carried thence before Heathen Courts Gods name should be blasphemed and the Gentiles scandalized at his people saying See what peace and right there is among those that professe the true God! For the same causes our Lord here estateth the same Power upon the Church Whereof I cannot give a more sufficient and effectuall argument then by shewing that it was in use under the Apostles Though the place out of which I shall shew this is hitherto otherwise understood because men consider not that it is not against Christianity that there be severall seats for severall ranks and dignities of the world in the Church And therefore that it is not that which the Apostle findes fault with James II. 1. when he forbids them to have the Faith of God with respect of persons But the Synagogue which he speaketh of in the next words is to be understood of the Court where they judged the causes and differences between members of the Church For that the Jews were wont to keep Court in their Synagogues we learn not onely by the Talmud Doctors Maimoni by name in the Title of Oaths cap. IX where he speaketh particularly of the case of an Oath made in the Synagogue when the Court sate there but by that which we finde in the New Testament Mat. X. 17. XXIII 34. Mar. XIII 9. Acts XXII 19. XXVI 11. as wel as in Epiphanius Haer. XXX that they used to scourge in their Synagogues To wit where sentence was given there justice was executed Wherefore being converted to Christianity they held the same course as appears by the words of the Apostle that follow Doe ye not make a difference among your selves and are become Judges of evill thoughts and again If ye accept persons ye commit sin being reproved by the Law By what Law but by that which saith Thou shalt not accept persons in judgement Lev. XIX 15. For the execution of which Law it is expresly provided by the Jews Constitutions in Maimoni Sanedrin ca. XXI that when a poor man and a Rich plead together the Rich shall not be bid to sit down and the poor stand or sit in a worse place but both sit or both stand which you see is the particular for which the Apostle charges them to have the Faith of Christ with respect of persons That is to shew favour in the causes of Christians according to their persons The same course we may well presume was setled by the Apostles at Corinth by the blame S. Paul charges them with for going to Law before Infidels 1 Cor. VI. 1 2. For how should he blame them for doing that which they had not order before not to doe And therefore if our Lord in this place give the Church power to excommunicate those that stand not to the sentence of the Church much more those that violate the Christianity which they have professed And this is also here expressed when from the particular he goes to the generall saying Whatsoever ye binde on earth giving thereby the same power to the Church here which he gave to S. Peter Mat. XVI 19. and to the Apostles John XX. 22. And so we have here two Heads of the causes of Excommunication The first of such things as concern the conscience and salvation of particular Christians when they commit such sins as destroy Christianity The second of such as concern the community of the Church and the unity thereof in which not the act but the contumacy the not hearing of the Church makes them subject to this sentence It is not my purpose to say that these nice reasons are to be the Title upon which the right of the Church to this power standeth or falleth But that being in possession of it upon a Title as old as Christianity and demonstrable by the same evidence it cannot be ejected out of this possession by any thing in the Scripture when it is rightly understood One objection there is more in consequence to this last reason that if the Church have power to sentence civile causes of Christians and by Excommunication to inforce that sentence when States professe Christianity all civill Laws will cease and all Judicatories be resolved into one Consistory of the Church The answer to this I deferre till I come to shew the Right of the States that professe Christianity in Church matters where it will easily appear how this inconvenience ceaseth In the mean time the Soveraign power of the Church consisting in the Sword of Excommunication upon which the Society thereof is founded it is necessarily manifest that this power is not lost to the Church nor forfeit to the State that professes Christianity and undertakes the protection of the Church For the Church and civill Societies
rank of the XII Apostles which afterwards he shews us was acknowledged by the XII themselves at Jerusalem Gal. II. 8 9. to wit when he went to Jerusalem with Barnabas about this question Acts XV. 1. for I can see no reason to doubt that all that he speaks of there passed during the time of this journey And in the mean time it was easie for those that stood for the Law to pretend Revelation from God and authority from the Apostles in matter of Christianity as well as Paul and Barnabas What possible way was there then to end this difference but that of the Apostle 1 Cor. XIV 32 33. The spirits of the Prophets are subject to the Prophets for God is not the God of unquietnesse but of peace as in all Churches of the Saints Whereupon vindicating his authority and challenging obedience to his Order even from Prophets which might be lifted up with Revelations to oppose he addeth Came the word of God from you or came it to you alone If any man think himself a Prophet or spirituall let him acknowledge the things that I write you to be the Commandements of God That is that Apostles being trusted to convey the Gospel to the world were to be obeyed even by Prophets themselves as the last resolution of the Church in the will of God granting his Revelations with that temper that as one Prophet might see more in the sense effect and consequence of Revelations granted to another then himself could doe in which regard the spirits of the Prophets were to be subject to the Prophets so for the publick order of the Church all were to have recourse to the Apostles whom he had trusted with it If then the Church of Antiochia in which were many Prophets and among them such as Paul and Barnabas indowed with the immediate Revelations of the Holy Ghost Acts XIII 1. must resort to Jerusalem the seat of the Apostles to be resolved in matters concerning the state of the Church how much more are we to beleeve that God hath ordained that dependence of Churches without which the Unity of no other humane Society can be preserved when he governeth them not but by humane discretion of reasonable persons Besides we are here to take notice that the Church of Antiochia being once resolved the Churches of Syria and Cilicia are resolved by the same Decree Acts XVI 4. Because being planted from thence they were to depend upon it for the Rule and practice of Christianity Therefore it is both truly and pertinently observed that the Decree made at Jerusalem was locall and not universall which had it been made for the whole Church there could not have been that controversie which we finde was at Corinth by S. Paul 1 Cor. VIII 1. about eating things offered to Idols Neither could the Apostle give leave to the Corinthians to eat them materially as Gods creatures not formally as things offered to Idols as he does 1 Cor. VIII 7. had the Body of the Apostles at Jerusalem absolutely forbid the eating of them to Gentile Christians for avoiding the scandall of the Jewish Christians But because the Decree concerned onely the Church of Antiochia and so by consequence the Churches depending upon it therefore among those that depended not upon it for whom the Rule was not intended it was not to be in force There is yet one reason behinde which is the ground of all from the Originall constitution of the Synagogue Moses by the advice of Jethro ordained the Captains of Thousands Hundreds Fifties and Tens to judge the Causes of the people under himself Ex. XVIII 24 25. To himself God joyned afterwards LXX persons for his assistance Num. XI 16. But these Captains were to be in place but during the pilgrimage of the wildernesse For when they came to be setled in the land of Promise the Law provideth that Judges and Ministers be ordained in every City Deut. XVI 18. Who if there fell any difference about the Law were to repair to Jerusalem to the successors of Moses and his Consistory for resolution in it Deut. XVII 12. by which Law wheresoever the Ark should be this Consistory was to sit as inferiour Consistories in all inferiour Cities Most men will marvell what this is to my purpose because most men have a prejudice that the power of the Church is to be derived from the Rights and Privileges of the Priests and Levites during the Law though there be no reason for it For these Rights and Privileges were not onely temporary to vanish when the Gospel was published but also while the Law stood but locall and personall not extending beyond the Temple or land of Promise over any but their own Tribe But it is very well known that from the time of the Greekish Empire and partly afore it Judaisme subsisted in all parts wheresoever the Jews were dispersed and that wheresoever it subsisted there were the people to be governed and regulated in the observation of the Law and the publique worship of God according to the same frequented also all over the land of Promise whereas the Temple stood but in one place It is also manifest that this Law which gave the Consistory power of life and death to preserve the Body of that people in Unity and to prevent Schisms upon different Interpretations of the Law was found requisite to be put in practice in their Dispersions to wit as to the determining of all differences arising out of the Law not as to the power of life and death to inforce such sentences this power being seldome granted them by their Soveraigns For at Alexandria we understand by Philo in his Book de Legatione ad Caium that there was such a Consistory as also in Babylonia there was the like as the Jews writings tell us for the little Chronicle which they call Seder Olam Zuta gives us the names of the Heads thereof for many ages And after the destruction of the Temple it is manifest not onely by their writings as Semach David Sepher Juchasin and the like but by Epiphanius in the Heresie of the Ebionites and the Constitutions of the Emperors remaining in the Codes Tit. de Judaeis Coelicolis that there continued a Consistory at Tiberias for many ages the Heads whereof were of the family of David as Epiphanius agreeing with the Jews informeth us in the place aforenamed And as by the story of Saul in the Acts it appears that the Jews of Damascus were subject to the Government at Jerusalem so by Epiphanius in the Heresie of the Ebionites it appears that the Synagogues of Syria and Cilicia were subject to the Consistory at Tiberias as I have shewed out of Benjamins Itinerary in the Discourse of the Apostolicall form of Divine Service p. 67. that the Synagogues of the parts of Assyria and Media were to that in Bagdat and without doubt that great Body of Jews dispersed through Aegypt was to that at Alexandria As for the Law
of Deut. XVII 18. the Jews need not tell us as they doe Maimoni by name Tit. de Syncdrio that they were not bound to observe that in their dispersions for how could there be Consistories for the Jews in all Cities all over the world but this they tell us withall in particular Arba Thurim in the same title Sub init that thereby they hold themselves bound to erect Consistories in the chief Cities of their dispersions In this condition what is the difference between the state of the Synagogue and the Church setting aside that essentiall difference between the Law and the Gospel by which Judaism was confined to one Nation but Christianity had a promise to be received by the Gentiles By reason whereof the Law ceased as it was proper to the Jews and Christians became obliged only to the perpetual Law of God besides a very few positive precepts of our Lord as of Baptism the Eucharist and the Power of the Keys by virtue whereof and by the generall Commission of the Apostles all Ordinances whereby they should regulate the Society of the Church were to be received as the Commandements of God Here is the reason for which it is probable that the Apostles in designing the Government of the Church should follow no other pattern then that which they saw in use by the Law in the Synagogue For the design in both being to maintain the Law of God and the unity of his people in his service saving the difference between them what form should they follow but that which the Law had taught their Fore-fathers But when the effect hereof appears in the first lines of this modell traced by the Apostles and filled up by their Successors it is manifest that these Laws were the pattern but the Order of the Apostles the Act which put it in being and force The Churches of Jerusalem Antiochia Rome and Alexandria no man can deny were planted by the Apostles in person and by their Deputies That they became afterwards Heads of the Churches that lay about them is no more then that which the Consistories planted at Jerusalem or Tiberias and in the chief Cities of the Jews dispersions were to the Synagogues underneath them by virtue of the Law This is therefore the Originall of the dependence of Churches upon the greatest Mother Churches And therefore it is no marvell that Jerusalem once the Mother City of Christianity became afterwards the seat of a Patriarch indeed in remembrance of that privilege but inferiour in dignity and nothing comparable in bounds to the rest because it was none of the greatest and most Capitall Cities The Rule of the Apostles design being this that the greatest Cities should be the Seats of the greatest Churches And that Constantinople when it came afterwards to be a Seat of the Empire was put in the next place to the Chief as it was no act of the Apostles so it is an argument of the Rule by which the rest had been ordered for the same reason As for the other Law of Deu. XVI 18. I know not what could be more agreeable to it then that Rule of the ancient Church which is to be seen not only in those few ancient Canons alledged in the discourse of the Primitive Government of Churches p. 67. but in innumerable passages of Church Writers that Cathedrall Churches and Cities be convertible that is both of the same extent Thus the Epistle of Ignatius to the Romanes is inscribed 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The presidence here expressed argueth the eminence of that Church above the rest of the Churches about it But Clemens directeth his Epistle from the Church of Rome to that of Corinth thus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 whereby we understand that the Country lying under the City belonged to the Church founded in the City and was therefore called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifying that which we now call the Diocese in opposition to the Mother Church That this is the reason of the name 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 appears because Polycarp addresses his Epistle to the Philippians in this style 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 For if the Church of the Philippians dwelt near Philippi then the Country adjoining belonged to the Church of that City This reason therefore was well understood by him that writ the Epistle to the Antiochians in Ignatius his name granting it to be of an age much inferiour to his For he inscribeth it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Signifying thereby that all the Christians of Syria belonged to the Church of Antiochia for which reason Ignatius himself in his Epistle to the Romanes calls himself Bishop of Syria not of Antiochia because being Bishop of the Head City Church the Christians of Syria either belonged to his Church or to the Churches that were under it A thing so necessary to be beleeved that there are many marks in his Epistles to shew that the Churches also of Cilicia belonged to his charge as we saw they did by their foundation in the Apostles time and as the reason of the civile Government required those parts where Paul and Barnabas first preached having continued longest in the Dominion of the Kings of Syria and therefore continuing under the Government that resided at Antiochia And thus are the words of Clemens in his Epistle to the Corinthians fulfilled where he saith that the Apostles having preached the Gospel in Cities and Countries constituted Bishops and Ministers of those that should beleeve to wit according to the Cities and Countries adjoining to them Those marks come from the ancientest Records the Church hath after the writings of the Apostles Of the rest there would be no end if a man would allege them If any man object that it cannot be made to appear how this Rule was ever observed in the Church the extent of Cathedrall Churches being in some Countries so strait in other so large The answer is that it ceaseth not to be a Rule though the execution of it was very different in severall Countries either because not understood so well as it should have been or because the condition of some Countries was not appliable to it so as that of others For the East we have these words of Walafridus Strabo libs de Rebus Ecclesiasticis Fertur in Orientis partibus per singulas Vrbes Praefecturas singulas esse Episcoporum gubernationes Whereby we understand that Cathedrall Churches stood very much thicker in the Eastern parts then in the West For thereupon it became observable to Walafridus In Africk if we look but into the writings of S. Augustine we shall finde hundreds of Bishops resorting to one Councell In Ireland alone S. Patrick is said by Ninius at the first plantation of Christianity to have founded three hundreth threescore and five Bishopricks On the other side in England we see still how many Counties remain in one Diocese of Lincoln and yet if we look into Almain and those mighty foundations of Charles the Great we
they found most proper for their assistance it is manifest that they could have no authority but derived from the Apostles A thing perfectly agreeing with the Custome that had always been among Gods People For all Prophets whom God imploied upon his messages and may therefore properly be called his Apostles as our Lord Christ is called the Apostle of our Profession Heb. III. 1 had their Disciples to wait upon them which is called ministring to them in the language of the Scripture Thus Joshua the Minister of Moses Exod. XXIV 13. Elizeus poured water on the hands of Elias as the Chief of his Scholars that expected a double portion of his spirit 2 Reg. II. 9. III. 11. Thus the Baptist saith he is not worthy to loose or take away our Saviours shooes Mat. III. 11. Mar. I. 7. that is to be his Disciple for by Maimoni in the Title of learning the Law cap. V. we learn that the Disciples of the Jews Doctors were to do that service for their Masters Hereupon saith Christ Luc. XXII 26. I am among you as he that ministreth to wit not as a Master but as a Disciple Thus the chief of our Lords Disciples whom he had chosen from the beginning to be with him receiving his Commission became his Apostles having waited on his Person and by familiar conversation learned his doctrine better then others Whereupon I said in the Primitive Government of Churches p. 3. that to make an Apostle it was requisite to have seen our Lord in the flesh and that he appeared to S. Paul after death to advance him to that rank by this privilege Mar. III. 14. Mat. X. 1 4. And shall we think that the Apostles did not as their Lord and all the Prophets before him had done choose themselves Scholars that by waiting on them might learn their Doctrine and become fit to be imploied under them and after them If we do we shall mis-kenne the most remarkable circumstances of Scripture For we may easily observe that those who are called in the Scriptures Euangelists are such as first waited upon the Apostles as S. Mark upon S. Peter Timothy and S. Luke upon S. Paul Acts XVI 1. XIX 22. as Mark upon Paul and Barnabas Acts XIII 5. and Mark again whether the same or another upon S. Paul 2 Tim. IV. 11. And therefore I easily grant both Timothy and Titus to have been Euangelists though the Scripture says it but of one 2 Tim. IV. 5. because I see them both Companions of S. Paul that is his Scholars and Ministers And therefore find it very reasonable that he should imploy Titus into Dalmatia to Preach the Gospel in those parts where himself had left hoping to goe further and carry it beyond into Illyricum whereof Dalmatia was a part as you may see by comparing the Scriptures 2 Tim. IV. 10. Rom. XV. 19. 2 Cor. X 16. Tit. III. 12. For thus also of the seven Ministers to the Apostles at Jerusalem you see Steven and Philip imploied in Preaching the Gospel and this later called therefore expresly an Euangelist Acts VI. 9. VIII 5 12. XXI 8. And therefore it is not possible for any man out of the Scriptures to distinguish between the Office of Euangelists and those whom I shewed to have been Apostles of the Apostles And thereby the conclusion remains firm that all Ecclesiasticall Power at that time remained and for future times is to be derived from the Apostles when we see by the Scriptures that the Euangelists derived their Office and Authority from their appointment And indeed how can common sense indure to apprehend it otherwise especially admitting that which hath been discoursed of the Power of the Keys in admitting into the Church That being made Christians by the Apostles because by them convinced to beleeve that they were Gods Messengers whom they stood bound to obey should neverthelesse by being Christains obtain the Power of regulating and concluding the Apostles themselves in matters concerning the Community of the Church which what it meant or that such a Society should be they could not so much as imagine but by them is a thing no common sense can admit without prejudice Those that purchase dominion by lawfull Conquest in the world become thereby able to dispose of all their Subjects have because they give them their lives that is themselves The Church is a People subdued to Christ by the Apostles not by force but by the sword of the Spirit and though to freedome yet that freedome consists in the state of particular Christians towards God not in the publique Power of the Church otherwise then it is conveyed lawfully from them that had it before the Church Indeed visible Christianity is a condition requisite to make a man capable of Ecclesiasticall Power and the Church is then in best estate when that legall presumption of invisible Christianity is most reasonable But if Saints because Saints have Power and Right to govern the Church then follows the Position imposed on Wicleffe and Husse in the Councell of Constance and condemned by all Christians that Ecclesiasticall Power holds and fails with Grace which will not fail to draw after it the like consequence in Secular matters pernicious to all Civile Societies that the interesse of honest men is the interesse of Kingdomes and States contradicting the principle laid down at the beginning that Christianity calls no man to any advantage of this world but to the Crosse Therefore no Christian or Saint as Saint or Christian hath any Right or Power in the Church but that which can be lawfully derived from the Order of the Apostles Those of the Congregations use to allege S. Peters apology to the Jewish Christians for conversing with Cornelius and his Company Acts XI 9. as also that of S. Paul Col. IV. 17. speaking to the body of the Church at Colossae Say to Archippus look to the Ministery which thou hast received to fulfill it as if S. Peter or Archippus must be afraid of Excommunication if they render not a good account of their actions to the People By which it may appear how truly I have said that the Power they give the People is in check to that Power which was exercised by the Apostles But if we reason not amisse it would be a great prejudice to Christianity that S. Peter could not inform Christian People of the reason of his doings which they understood not but he must make them his Soveraign Or that S. Paul conveying his commands to Archippus by an Epistle directed to the whole Church should be thought to invest the People in that Power by which he commands Archippus They allege also the People of the Church of Jerusalem present at the Councell there and joyned in the letter by which the decree is signified and conveyed to the Churches of Syria and Cilicia Acts XV. 4 12 23. But of this I have spoken already and am very willing to leave all men to judge by the premises whether
rather then by the neighbour Bishops of the Romane Empire from whence they received Christianity The Head of a Monastery in Aegypt being a Presbyter is said by Cassiane Collat. IV. 2. to have promoted a Monk whom he loved to the Priesthood Is not this done by recommending him to his Bishop for that purpose though he Ordained him not himself The Bishops of Durham and Lichfield are said by Bede Eccles Hist Angl. III. 3 5. to come from the Monastery of Hy governed by a Priest And it is true that the Monks of that Monastery having great reputation of holinesse swaied the Church there But withall Bede mentions expresly the Synod of the Province and therefore we need ask no further who Ordained them Bishops knowing that by the Primitive Rules of the Church it is the Act of a Synod Some seem to conceive this to be the meaning of the supposed S. Ambrose upon Eph. IV. 11. where he saith that at first the eldest of the Presbyters succeeded the Bishop but that afterwards the course was changed ut non Ordo sed meritum crearet Episcopum which they understand thus That his merit and not the Bench of Presbyters should make the Bishop thenceforth and therefore that formerly the Presbyters did it But this is nothing For it is plain that Ordo here signifies not the Bench of Presbyters but a mans Rank in it according to the time of his promotion to it These others of his slight Objections are easily wiped away But there are two which seem to most men to create some difficulty The one is the ninth Canon of the Councell of Ancyra which if the reading be true which he produces and Walo Messalinus presses intimates plain enough that City Presbyters might Ordain Presbyters at that time when it was made The other is the Antiquities of the Church of Alexandria published not long since out of Eutychius his History who was Patriarch there in his time and affirms that from S. Mark to Demetrius the Bishop there was not only chosen but Ordained by Imposition of the Hands of twelve Presbyters of that Church To the Canon of Ancyra I acknowledge that the reading which they follow is beside the Copies which they allege found in a very ancient written one of the Library at Oxford as well as in the old Latine Translation of Dionysius Exiguus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 That it be not lawfull for Country Bishops to Ordain Presbyters or Deacons Nor for the City Presbyters without leave granted from the Bishop by Letters in every Parish But I cannot grant this reading to be true which so many circumstances render questionable First in an Arabick Paraphrase now extant in the same Library there is nothing to be found of that clause 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Secondly Isidore Mercators Translation which seems to be that which was anciently received in the Spanish Churches before Dionysius Exiguus wherewith that Copy agreed which Hervetus translated as also Fulgentius his Breviate Can. XCII and the Copy of Dionysius Exiguus which Pope Adriane the I. followed hath onely this Vicariis Episcoporum quos Graeci Chorepiscopos vocant non licere Presbyteros vel Diaconas Ordinare Sed nec Presbyteris civitatis sine Episcopi praecepto amplius aliquid imperare vel sine authoritate literarum ejus in unaquaque Parochiâ aliquid agere Thirdly can the reading of the last words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 seem probable to reasonable persons what consequence of sense is there in saying unlesse license be granted by letters in every Parish Which is plain in this reading when it is said That the City Presbyters do nothing in the Parish that is in the Country or Diocese without authority by the Bishops letters Fourthly seeing this is that which is afterwards provided for by the Councel of Laodicea Ca. LVI in the same subject it seems very probable that this should be the provision which the Councell of Ancyra intended as all Ignatius his Epistles and other Canons Apost XL. Arelat XIX expresse it Though for my part I do not beleeve that we have the true reading of this Canon in any Copy that I have heard of or seen Because the Arabick Paraphrase aforesaid deduces the clause of the Country Bishops at large that it is not granted them Vt faciant Presbyteros neque Diaconos omnino neque in Villa neque in Vrbe absque mandato Episcopi Nisi rogatus fuerit Episcopus hac de re permiserit eis ut faciant eos necnon scripserit eis scriptum quod authoritatem dabit eis eadem de re Whereupon I do beleeve that the Canon is abridged and curtailed in all Copies and that the true intent of it consists in two clauses The first that Country Bishops Ordain neither Presbyters nor Deacons without leave under the Bishops hand The second that the City Presbyters do nothing in the Diocese without the like leave Though I undertake not to give you the words of mine own head As for Eutychius I cannot admit his relation to be Historicall truth having forfeited his credit in that part of it where he says that there were no Bishops in Aegypt beside him of Alexandria before Demetrius The contrary whereof appears by Eusebius Eccles Hist VI. 1. where he says of Aegypt 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 That then lately Demetrius after Julian had undertook the Bishoprick of the Dioceses there For where there were Dioceses there were Bishops And if Demetrius after Julian governed the Dioceses of Aegypt because Bishop of Alexandria then were there other Episcopall Churches in that Province besides Alexandria before Demetrius Indeed if there had been no Bishops under Alexandria it could not reasonably be avoided that the Bishop should be Ordained by the Presbyters Otherwise forein Bishops that should be called to Ordain them a Bishop must by so doing purchase a Power over that Church which never any can be said to have had over those Capitall Churches of Antiochia Rome Alexandria or Constantinople But supposing that there were Bishops under him of Alexandria it is a greater inconvenience to grant that their Chief should be made without their consent which Ordination implies by the often quoted rule of S. Paul 1 Tim. V. 22. by the Presbyters of Alexandria And therefore when S. Hierome says Epist LXXXV that Bishops were set over the Presbyters by custome of the Church to avoid Schism because that Alexandriae à Marco Evangelista usque ad Heraclam Dionysium Episcopos Presbyteri semper unum ex se electum in excelsiori gradu collocatum Episcopum nominabant At Alexandria from Mark the Evangelist till Heraclas and Dionysius were Bishops the Presbyters were wont to choose one of their number and placing him in a higher degree named him their Bishop I am not to grant that he intends by these words that he was Ordained also by the Presbyters For instance Eusebius Eccles Hist VI. 29. relating that at the Ordination of Fabianus
at Rome a Dove lighting upon his head the people crying out 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Tooke him presently and set him in the Bishops Throne And yet it cannot be said that therefore the people Ordained him Bishop So likewise the Presbyters of Alexandria seated one of their number in the Bishops Chair saith S. Hierome This installing must needs have the force of a nomination by the Presbyters and so sway and prejudice the consent of the Bishops assembled to the Ordination which regularly was to be done by a Synod of Bishops that their choice was never known to have been void before the time of Dionysius and Heraclas which was enough to ground S. Hierome an argument though ineffectuall But seeing Eusebius shews us that there were other Bishops in Aegypt seeing the life of S. Mark in Photius saith that he planted Churches in Pentapolis which seem to be those over which the authority of the Bishop of Alexandria is established by the Councell of Nice Can. IX I must not grant that they received their chief from the Presbyters of Alexandria without their own consent expressed by Imposition of Hands This is my opinion of the credit which we are to give to these two passages in point of Historicall truth But supposing not granting them both I cannot see what can be inferred from either of them prejudiciall to the Order of Bishops and the necessity thereof above Presbyters For seeing it is acknowledged that S. Mark Ordained a Bishop always to be Head of that Church and that by virtue of this Ordinance the Presbyters finde themselves obliged to proceed to create one which they did sooner at Alexandria then in other Churches after the vacancy saith Epiphanius Haer. LXIX 11. it is manifest that the authority of a Bishop is necessary to the validity of all Acts of the Church by S. Marks Ordinance when they acknowledge themselves necessitated to make one in the first place that the Acts thereof may be valid Again as to the Canon of Ancyra suppose Presbyters were Ordained by Presbyters upon Commission from the Bishop is this any prejudice to the Rule that nothing be done without the Bishop Or is it any advantage to them that would have no Bishops and so do all against the Bishop To my reason it seems necessary to distinguish between the solemnity which an Act is executed with and the Power and Authority by which it is done And that it cannot be prejudiciall to any Power to doe that by another which seemeth not fit to be immediately and personally executed by it The dependence of the Church being safe by the Commission acknowledged and the Unity of the Church by that dependence Some acts of the Primitive Church seem to require this distinction As the making of Presbyters by the Chorepiscopi or Country Bishops mentioned in the ancient Greek Canons Which by all likelihood were not properly Bishops because not Heads of a City Church which is the Apostolicall Rule for Episcopall Churches For the aforesaid Arabick Paraphrase of the Canon of Ancyra describes them thus Interpretatio ejus est Episcopi Villarum hoc est Vicarii Episcopi per Villas habitatas qua fuerint in universa operatione id est Diocesi The meaning of Country Bishops is that they are Bishops of Villages that is the Bishops Vicars in the best inhabited Villages of all the Diocese So it seems that they were set over the greater Villages or Bodies of Villages which in regard of some secular Right resort to some one Village lying within the Territory of some Episcopall City Therefore the Councell of Antiochia saith expresly Can. X. that they and the Countries which they govern are both subject to the Bishop of the City Whereupon it seems they were Ordained by that one Bishop and so not properly Bishops which are Ordained by a Synod or the Representatives of it and that this is the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which the Canon there mentions And this is the reason why they are called Vicarii Episcoporum Bishops Deputies in the ancient Translation of the Canons as you have seen So if the Canon of Ancyra enable them to Ordain Presbyters within their own precinct for that must be the meaning of it when it says 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifying part of the Territory of the City assigned to their peculiar care it seems to delegate this Power of the Bishop not to be exercised without Letters under his hand and seal as the Canon expresseth Again I suppose no man will deny that all Ordinations in Schism are meer nullities though made by persons rightly Ordained because against the Unity of the Church And yet we finde such Ordinations made valid by the meer Decree of the Church without Ordaining anew As the Meletians in Aegypt by the Councell of Nice in Epiphanius and the Ecclesiasticall Histories and as Pope Melchiades much commended for it by S. Augustine offered to receive all the Donatists in their own ranks besides divers others that might be produced Among which that expressed in the Canons Antioch XIII Apost XXXVI deserves to be remembred whereby Ordinations made in another Bishops Diocese are made void For the only reason why some things though they be ill done yet are to stand good is because the Power that doth them extendeth to them but is ill used So when the Power is usurped as in all Schism or when that is done which the Law makes void it can be to no effect Therefore when the act of Schism is made valid it is manifest that the Order of Bishop Presbyter is conferred in point of Right by the meer consent of the Church which by the precedent Ordination was conferred only in point of Fact being a meer nullity in point of Right Adde hereunto that of the Apostolicall Constitutions VIII 27. that a Bishop may be Ordained by one Bishop being inabled by an Order of the rest of the Province when they cannot assemble in case of persecution or the like For here the Power is derived from all though the solemnity be executed by one By the same reason it is that Confirmation in Aegypt was done by the Presbyters As the supposed S. Ambrose upon Eph. IV. agreeing with the Author of the Quaestions in Vet. Novum Testam Quaest CI. among S. Augustines Works witnesseth For that is it which the one of them means by consignant the other by consecrat because both limit their assertion that it was onely done in the absence of the Bishop Which cannot be supposed at Ordinations because they were regularly to be made at a Synod of Bishops For seeing it was done onely in the absence of the Bishop by consequence it was done by Order and Commission from the Bishop by which the custome was established And therefore cannot be prejudiciall to that Power by virtue whereof it was done as by authority derived from it And to my understanding this is the reason of that which we finde done Acts XIII 1 where
and professed Christianity they oppose the saying of the Apostle that it stands not with charity for the Church to injoin any thing which weak consciences may be offended at And that of our Lord that this would be will-worship and serving of God according to humane traditions which are all the arguments which those of the Congregations allege for their opinion so farre as I can learn It will be therefore worth the while to consider the cases which the Apostle decides upon that principle though I have done it in part already in my larger Discourse p. 309. for so long as the case is not understood in which the Apostle alleges it no marvell if it be brought to prove that which he never intended by it We know he resolves both the Romanes and the Corinthians by this sentence With the Corinthians the case was concerning the eating of things sacrificed to Idols which the Apostle manifestly distinguishes that it may be done two ways materially and formally materially when a man eats it as a creature of God giving him thanks for it which the Apostle therefore determines to be agreeable to Christianity 1 Cor. VIII 7. formally when a man eats it with conscience of the Idoll as a thing sacrificed to it as the Apostle expresses it that is with a religious respect to it which therefore he shews at large to be Idolatry 1 Cor. X. 7 14 Wherefore though things sacrificed to Idols be as free for Christians to eat as any men else yet in some cases and circumstances it so fell out that a Christian eating with a Gentile of their Sacrifices the remains whereof were the cheer which they feasted upon and their Feasts part of the Religion which they served their Idols with might be thought by a weak Christian to hold their Sacrificing as indifferent as their meat and he that thus thought be induced to eat them formally as things offered to Idols As eating them in the Temples of Idols or at a Feast made by a Gentile upon occasion of some Sacrifices 1 Cor. VIII 10. X. 27. In this case the Apostle determines that charity requires a Christian to forbear the use of his freedome when the use of it may occasion a weak Christian to fall into misprision of Idolatry But among the Romanes the case which S. Paul speaks to was between Christians converted from Jews and from Gentiles as appears by the particulars which he mentions to be scrupled at to wit days and meats kom XIV 2 5. and the offence likely thereby to come to passe this that Jewish Christians seeing the Heathenish eat things forbidden by the Law and perhaps among the rest things sacrificed to Idols forbidden not by the letter of the Law but by the interpretation and determination of it in force by the authority of the Synagogue or Consistory might imagine that Christians renounced the Law of God and by consequence the God of the Law and so out of zeal to the true God fall from Christianity and perish For this is manifestly the offence and stumbling which the Apostle speaks of Rom. XIV 13 15 20. as I have shewed out of Origen in the place afore quoted Here is then the sentence of the Apostle that when the use of those things wherein Christians are not limited by the Law of God becomes an occasion of falling into sin to those that understand not the reason of the freedome of Christians charity requires a Christian to forbear the use of this freedom From whence who so inferres that therefore no Ecclesiasticall Law can be of force when it meets with a weak conscience and therefore never because it may always meet with such will conclude the contrary of the Apostles meaning For when Christianity makes all things free to a Christian that are not limited by Gods Law it makes not the use of this freedome necessary to Christianity the Apostle saying expresly that the Kingdome of God is not meat and drink Rom. XIV 17. by consequence not the observing or not observing of days That is consists no more in not eating or not observing days then in eating in observing them So that as he that submits unto the Law of charity must forbear his freedome once and as often as the use of it ministreth offence so for the same reason must he always forbear the use of it whensoever the use of it comes to be restrained though not by Gods Law yet by the Law of the Church Because the greatest offence the greatest breach of charity is to call in question the Order established in the Church in the preservation whereof the Unity of the Church consisteth Whereunto thus much may be added that as the things that are determined by the Canons of the Church are not determined by Gods Law as to the species of the matter and subject of them yet as to the authority from whence the determination of them may proceed they may be said to be determined by Gods Law in as much as by Gods Law that authority is established by which those things are determinable which the good Order and Unity of the Church requires to be determined The evidence of which authority is as expresse in Gods Book as it can be in any Book inspired by God Those of the Congregations indeed betake themselves here to a Fort which they think cannot be approached when they say that what is written in the Scripture is revealed from above and therefore the Laws that are there recorded are no precedents to the Church to use the like right For it is manifest by the Scriptures of the Old Testament that there were many Laws Ordinances Constitutions or what you please to call them in force at that time which no Scripture can shew to have been commanded by revelation from God as the Law of God Daniel forbore the Kings meat because a portion of it was sacrificed to their Idols dedicating the whole to the honour of the same That is he forbore to eate things sacrificed to Idols materially Therefore that Order which we see was afterwards in force among the Jews was then in use and practice Not by the written Law of God therefore by the determination of those whom the Law gave Power to determine such matters The Prophet Joel reckons up many circumstances and ceremonies of the Jews publick Fasts and Humiliations Joel II. 15 16 17. which are so farre from being commanded by the law that the Jews Doctors confesse there is no further Order for any Fasts in the Law then that which they draw by a consequence far enough fetched out of Num. X. 9. where Order is given for making the Trumpets which they say and the Prophet supposes that their Fasts were proclaimed with Maimoni Tit. Taanith cap. I. In another Prophet Zac. VII 3. VIII 19. it appears that there were set Fasts which they were bound to solemnize every year on the fourth fifth seventh and tenth moneths As also it appears by the words of
the Pharisee Luc. XVIII 12. that the Mundays and Thursdays were then and before then observed by the Jews as since they have been And as you see the like done in the Feast of Lots ordained in Esthers time and that of the Dedication in Judas Maccabcus his And in the same Prophet Zac. XII 12 13 14. you have a manifest allusion to the Jews ceremonies at their Funerals recorded by Maimont in the title of Mourners cap. IX clearly shewing that they were in force in that Prophets time As it is manifest that they began before the Law it self not only by that which we reade of the Funerals of Jacob in Genesis but chiefly because it required an expresse Law of God to derogate from it as to the Priests in the case of Aarons sons Levit. X. 6. XXI 1 10 11 12. Many more there are to be observed in the Old Testament if these were not enough to evidence that which cannot be denied that it appears indeed by Scripture that there were such Laws in force but that they were commanded by revelations from God is quite another thing Though men of learning sometimes make themselves ridiculous by mistaking as if all that is recorded in the Scriptures were commanded by God when all that comes from God is the record of them as true not the authority of them as divine The case is not much otherwise in the New Testament where it is manifest that many Constitutions Ordinances or Traditions as the Apostle sometimes calls them 1 Cor. XI 2. are recorded which no man can say that they obliged not the Church and yet this force of binding the Church comes not from the mention of them which we finde in severall places of Scripture For they must needs be in force before they could be mentioned as such in the Scriptures but from that Power which God had appointed to order and determine such things in his Church This difference indeed there is between the Old and New Testament that this being all written in the Apostles time can mention nothing of that nature but that which comming from the Apostles might come by immediate revelation from God Which of the Old cannot be said For though there were Prophets in all ages of it and those Prophets endowed with such trust that if they commanded to dispense with any of Gods own positive Laws they were to be obeyed as appears by Elias commanding to Sacrifice in Mount Carmell contrary to the Law of Levit. XVII 4. and this by virtue of the Law Deut. XVIII 18 19. because he that gave the Law by Moses might by another as well dispense with it yet it is manifestly certain that neverthelesse they had not the power of making those Constitutions which were to bind the people in the exercise of their Religion according to the Law For when the Law makes them subject to be judged by the Consistory whether true Prophets or not whereupon we see that they were many times persecuted and our Lord at last put to death by them that would not acknowledge them because they had not the grace to obey them as you saw afore it cannot be imagined that they were enabled to any such act of government as giving those Laws to the Synagogue Especially seeing by the Law of Deut. XVII 8-12 this power and this right is manifestly setled upon the Consistory For seeing that by the Law all questions arising about the Law are remitted to the place of Gods worship where the Consistory sate in all ages and the determination of a case doubtfull in Law to be obeyed under pain of death is manifestly a Law which all are obliged to live by of necessity therefore those who have power to determine what the written Law had not determined doe give Law to the people And this right our Lord himself who as a Prophet had right to reprove even the publick government where it was amisse establishes as ready to maintain them in it had they submitted to the Gospel when he says Mat. XXIII 2. The Scribes and Pharisees sit in Moses Chair all therefore that they teach you observe and doe The Scribes and Pharisees being either limbs and members or appendences of the Consistory who under pain of death were not to teach any thing to determine any thing that the Law had not determined contrary to that which the Consistory had first agreed Whereby it is manifest that all these Laws and Ordinances aforenamed and all others of like nature which all common sense must allow to have been more then the Scripture any where mentions are the productions of this Right and Power placed by God in the Consistory on purpose to avoid Schism and keep the body of the people in Unity by shewing them what to stand to when the Law had not determined So that this is nothing contrary to the Law of Deut. IV. 2. XII 32. which forbiddeth to adde to or take from Gods Law the Law remaining intire when it is supplied by the Power which it self appointeth And he that will see the truth of this with his eys let him look upon the Jews Constitutions compiled into the Body of their Talmud Which though they are now written and in our Saviours time were taught from hand to hand though by succession of time and change in the State of that People they cannot continue in all points the same as they were in our Saviours time yet it is manifest that the substance of them was then in force because whatsoever the Gospel mentions of them is found to agree with that which they have now in writing And are all manifestly the effect of the lawfull power of the Consistory Nor let any man object that they are the Doctrines of the Pharisees which they pretended that Moses received from God in Mount Sinai and delivered by word of mouth to his Successors and that the Sadduces were of another opinion who never acknowledged any such unwritten Law but tied themselves to the letter as doth at this day one part of the Jews which renounce the Talmud and rest in the letter of the Law who are therefore called Karaim that is Scripturaries For though all this be true yet neither Pharisees nor Sadduces then neither Talmudists nor Scripturaries now did or do make question of acknowledging such Laws and Constitutions as are necessary to determine that which grows questionable in the practice of the Law but are both in the wrong when as to gain credit to those Orders and Constitutions which both bodies respectively acknowledge the one will have them delivered by God to Moses the other will needs draw them by consequence out of the letter of the Scripture And so entitle them to God otherwise then he appointed which is only as the results and productions of that power which he ordained to end all matter of difference by limiting that which the Law had not The same reason necessarily takes place under the New Testament saving the difference
between the Law and the Gospel For under the Law this power took place in the practice of all Ceremoniall and Judiciall Laws proper to the Synagogue As well as in determining the circumstances and ceremonies of the worship of God which still remains under the Gospel saving the difference thereof from the Law For under the Gospel there belong to Christianity two sorts of things The first whereof are of the substance of Christianity as concerning immediately the salvation of particular Christians And this kinde is further to be distinguished into matter of Faith and matter of life or manners The second concerns indeed the salvation of particular Christians as containing the Unity of the Church and the due exercise of all those Ordinances which God will be served with in the Unity of the Church but mediately as they are means to beget and preserve in all Christians those things of the former sort that concern Faith or good maners For if it were morally possible to imagine that a man blamelesly deprived of all means of Communion with the Church could be neverthelesse endowed with all parts of a Christian in Faith and good manners I doe not see how any discreet Christian could deny such a one the end of Christianity which is life everlasting All things therefore concerning Faith and good Works necessary to the salvation of particular Christians are so revealed or rather so commanded by our Lord and his Apostles that it is not possible for all the Church that succeeds to declare any thing to be such that is not expresly or by consequence contained in their writings For how shall all the Church be able to adde any thing to this number but by shewing the same motives which our Lord and his Apostles advanced to the World to perswade them not onely that what they spoke was revealed by God but also that they were sent to require the World to beleeve and obey them But as to that which concerns the Society of the Church and the publick service of God in the Unity of the same what can we say our Lord in Person commanded but the Power of the Keys upon which it is founded and the Sacraments of Baptism and the Eucharist in the Communion whereof the Unity of the Church consisteth And his Apostles how did they proceed in determining the rest Surely he that will say that they never enacted any thing till a revelation came on purpose from God will fall under the same inconveniencies which render the infallibility of the Pope or the Church ridiculous to common sense Which if they beleeved themselves sure they would never call Councels advise with Doctors debate with one another to finde what may truly be said or usefully determined in matters of difference In like manner when the Apostles assemble themselves at Jerusalem Acts XV. 1 to debate in a full meeting with Saul and Barnabas the Presbyters of Jerusalem and the rest what to resolve in the matter there questioned I say not they were no Prophets or had no revelations from God when he pleased But I say it is manifest that they proceeded not upon confidence of any revelation promised them at this time and in this place but upon the habituall understanding which as well by particular revelation from God as by the Doctrine of our Lord they had proportionable to the Chief Power over the whole Church which they were trusted with To speak ingenuously mine own opinion which I seek not to impose upon any mans Faith I do beleeve that some person of those that were then assembled in Councell had a present inspiration revealing that Gods will was that the Decree there enacted should be made My reason is because I observe by divers passages of the Old and New Testaments that God was wont to send revelations to his Prophets at the publick Assemblies of the Church of Synagogue As at the sending of Saul and Barnabas Acts XIII 2. At the Ordination of Timothy 1 Tim. IV. 14. At the Assemblies of the Corinthians 1 Cor. XIV 24 25 30. At Josaphats Fast 2 Chron. XVIII 14. At Saint Johns Ordinations whereof Clemens in the place afore alleged out of Eusebius his Ecclesiasticall Histories saith that the Apostle was wont to goe abroad to Ordain such as were signified by the Holy Ghost Whereupon S. Paul saith of the Presbyters of Ephesus That the Holy Ghost had set them over the flock Acts XX. 28. and therefore when it is said Acts XV. 28. It seemed good to the Holy Ghost and to us I take it that some such revelation is intimated But this notwithstanding when we see the message sent the Church assembled the cause debated without assurance of any such revelation to be made whereof no Prophet had assurance till it came we see they proceeded not upon presumption of it but upon the conscience of their ordinary power and the habituall abilities given them to discharge it So that from the premises we have two reasons serving to vindicate the same Power to the Church The first because the Constitutions in force under the Apostles cannot be said to come from particular extraordinary inspiration of the Holy Ghost but from the ordinary power of governing the Church which was to continue The second because by the proceedings of the Councell of Jerusalem it appears that no revelation was a ground or requisite to the determining of the matter there in difference To which I adde a third from S. Pauls words 1 Cor. XI 16. If any man be contentious we have no such custome neither the Churches of God Where having disputed by many reasons that women were to vail their faces at the Service of God in the Church he sets up his rest upon laudable custome of the Church Now if custome be available to create Right in the Church as in civile Societies then authority much more without which either prescribing or allowing neither that custome which the Apostle specifies nor any other could take place And a fourth from that observation so advanced and improved that no man can deny it but he that will make himself ridiculous to all men of learning besides the instances thereof in the premises which is this That the Orders which the Apostles setled in the Church saving the difference between the Law and the Gospel are always or at least most an end drawn from the pattern of the Synagogue Whereby it appeareth that the convenience of them was evident not by revelation but by humane discourse but the force of them comes from the authority of the Apostles prescribing or allowing them in the Church Both which are always in the Church though in lesse measure Fifthly this is proved by the premises Wherein I conceive it is proved that the Clergy in the Church succeeds into the Authority of the Jews Consistories in the Synagogue Wherefore having shewed that those Consistories did give Law to the Synagogue in all matters of Religion not determined by God it follows
Jude ver 12. calls their Feasts of Love And the attendance upon this entertainment was the cause of making the Deacons which is called therefore the daily ministration and attendance at Tables Acts VI. 1 ◠Now will any man say that those Primitive Christians held not themselves tied to pay Tithes that offered all their estates At Corinth I beleeve S. Chrysostome that this course was not frequented every day as at Jerusalem but probably the first day of the week because upon that the Disciples assembled at Troas Acts XX. 7. or perhaps upon other occasions also for to have done always every where as at Jerusalem would have destroied civile Society which the Gospel pretendeth to preserve But those that offer the First-fruits of their goods to this purpose when Secular Laws enable them not to endow the Church with their Tithes doe they not acknowledge that duty and that as taught by the Apostles so to acknowledge it For can any living man imagine that they were weary of their estates if the Apostles from whom they received their Christianity had not informed them that Christianity required it at their hands In the next place let us consider the contributions which the Churches of the Gentiles were wont to send to the Christians at Jerusalem being brought low by parting with their estates It is to be understood that the Jews that lived out of their own Country dispersed in the Romane and Parthian Empires not being under the Law of Tithes which was given to the Land of Promise nor resorting to the Temple were notwithstanding in recompense of the same wont to make a stock out of which they sent their Oblations from time to time to maintain the Service of God as is to be seen up and down in Josephus besides Philo and the Talmud Doctors If then the Churches of the Gentiles in imitation hereof contribute their Oblations to support the Church of Jerusalem and the Service of God there being then the Mother City of Christianity before it was setled in the Capitall Cities of the Romane Empire as by all those passages appears which mention the Oblations of the Churches sent to Jerusalem Acts XI 30. XII 25. Rom. XV. 26. 2 Cor. VIII IX per tot 1 Cor. XVI 1. Gal. II. 10. do they not therby openly professe themselves taught by the Apostles that they were under the same obligation of maintaining the service of God in the Church as the Jews in the Temple Again the Apostle having shewed that Christians have the same right of communicating in the Sacrifice of Christ crucified as the Jews in the Sacrifices that were not wholly consumed by fire in the passage handled afore of Heb. XIII 8-14 pursues it thus in the next words By him then let us offer continually to God the Sacrifice of Praise which is the fruit of the lips giving thanks to his Name But to doe good and communicate forget not for with such sacrifices God is well pleased Where by the Sacrifice of Praise he means the Eucharist as it is called usually in the ancient Liturgies and writings of the Fathers For to this purpose is the whole dispute of that place that in that Sacrament Christians communicate in the Sacrifice of Christ crucified which Jews can have no right to in stead of all the Sacrifices of the Law And therefore by doing good and communicating he means the Oblations of the faithfull out of which at the beginning the poor and the rich lived in common at the Assemblies of the Church and when that course could no more stand with the succeeding state of the Church both the Eucharist was celebrated and the persons that attended on the service of God were maintained Therefore this obligation ceaseth not though the Ceremoniall Law be taken away The next argument is from the words of S. Paul Ephes IV. 11 in which few or none take notice of any thing to this purpose but to me comparing them with the premises it seemeth so expresse that it were a wrong to the Church so much concerned in them to let them goe any longer without notice He hath made saith S. Paul some Apostles some Prophets some Evangelists some Pastors and Doctors For the compacting of the Saints for the work of ministery for the edification of the Body of Christ That is as it follows that being sincere in love we may grow in all things in him who is the Head even Christ From whom the whole Body compacted and put together by the furnishing of every limb according to the working proportionable in every part causeth the body to waxe unto the edification of it self in love Here you are to mark these words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 For 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the New Testament signifies in a vulgar sense to furnish any man maintenance as Mat. XXV 44. 1 Tim. II. 18. Heb. VI. 10. Luc. VIII 2. 1 Pet. IV. 10. In another sense it is used to signifie the Service of God in publishing the Gospel but almost always with some addition discovering the metaphor by expressing the subject of that service to wit the Word the Gospell the Spirit the New Covenant Acts VI. 6. 2 Cor. V. 18 19. III. 8. In this sense it is commonly taken here but it seems a mistake For when the Apostle saith that God hath given his Church Governours and Teachers for the Compacting of the Saints for the work of ministery for the edification of the Body of Christ his meaning is that the Body of the Church is compacted and held together to frequent publick Assemblies by the Contribution of the rich to the maintenance of those that attend upon the service of God which is here called the work of ministery to the end that by the Doctrine of the Governors and Teachers of the Church at the said Assemblies it may be built up to a full measure of Christianity This sense the words that follow require From whom the whole Body compacted that is that the Body of the Church being inabled frequently to assemble by the operation of those that are able furnishing every member proportionably to his want commeth by Christ to perfection in Christianity This sense the parallel places of Rom. XII 4 7 8. 1 Pet. IV. 4. necessarily argue Where having speech of those things which particular members of the Church are to contribute to the improvement of the whole both Apostles expresse two kinds of them one spirituall of instruction in Christianity the other corporall of means to support the Church in holding their Assemblies For as those that want cannot balk the necessities of this life to attend upon Divine Service unlesse they be furnished by the body of the Church So much more those that minister the Service of the Church cannot attend upon the same unlesse they be secured of their support And for this cause the first Christians at Jerusalem and by their example they that sent their Oblations to the Church
to the service of God in the like precept Levit. XIX 32. Stand up before the gray head and reverence the Presbyters and fear thy Gods I am the Lord. Where the gradation shews that this Text concerns not the fear of God but the reverence due to their Judges and Doctors of the Law It is a vulgar mistake that Soveraign Powers are called Gods in the Scriptures The Jews are in the right that their Judges made by Imposition of Hands are they whom the Scripture calls Gods For so it is used to signifie those that were to judge Gods people by Gods Law Exod. XXI 6. XXII 8 9. Neither doth it signifie any but the Consistory Ps LXXXII 1 6. being it seems at that time when this Psalm was penned for Absalom or for Saul against David For these are they to whom the word of the Lord came as our Saviour says Iohn IX 35. that is whom the execution of the Law was trusted with Now you have seen that Presbyters were a degree under Judges and therefore the gradation can hold onely thus First stand up before the gray hairs that is them who are onely honourable for their age Secondly reverence Presbyters which besides years having studied the Law till thirty or forty years of age had authority to Teach the Law And lastly fear your Judges who have power to sentence matters of difference Thus the gradation continues in the same kinde and thus this precept is interpreted by the Talmud Doctors in Maimoni in the Title of Learning the Law c. 6. Moses of Kotzi upon this Precept Having therefore shewed that the Clergy in the Church succeed into the authority which the Consistories bore under the Synagogue it follows that the precept of the Apostle 1 Thess V. 12 13. Heb. XIII 17. imports this reverence due to them as persons consecrate to the service of God And so this holinesse is the same in Persons as in Places consecrate to that purpose There is no man so simple as to think Churches capable of that holinesse by which Christian souls are holy But because the actions of Gods service proceeding from souls so qualified are presumed to be Holy therefore the Times the Places the Persons deputed to such actions in publick are to be reverenced in regard of that deputation for their works sake saith the Apostle in an Ecclesiasticall not in any spirituall capacity common to Persons with Times and Places Because this qualification serves to maintain in the minds of people the reverence they owe to those acts of Gods service whereunto they are deputed Which those that never beleeved heretofore do now see by that ruine of Christianity which these few years have brought to passe amongst us This ground the Jews Doctors seem very well to understand when they question why the open street or Piazza is not Holy seeing the Publick Fasts of the Jews were many times held in them Those Assemblies being it seems so great that the Synagogue would not contain the people Where by the way you see why our Lord reproves the Pharisees because they loved to pray standing in the corners of streets and to sound a trumpet before their alms Mat. VI. 2 5. because those Fasts were solemnized in the street with sound of Trumpet Their answer is that the market place or street or Piazza is used accidentally to this purpose but the Synagogue is deputed expresly to it Maimoni Of Prayer and the Priests Blessing cap. XI The reason then of this Ecclesiasticall or morall holinesse is the deputation to the holy Ordinances of Divine Service which deputation if it be by Ordinance of the Apostles solemnized upon persons by prayer with Imposition of Hands why shall it not be solemnized by Consecration of Places which is nothing else but the solemne deputation of them to their purpose by prayer to God as persons are consecrated when they are deputed to the service of God And is it not strange that any man should finde a negative reverence due to the places of Gods service but all positive reverence nothing else then superstition revived For what reason can be given why men should abstain from light or vain or secular businesse imploiment or cariage in Churches but because the minde is to be possessed and exercised about the contrary And what reverence and devotion to God in the Ordinances of his Service can be maintained without making difference between common and Consecrate Places is not to be seen by the practice of this time that hath laid all reverence and devotion aside and therefore it seems will never be seen again untill that reverence be revived again and sensibly expressed to Persons and Places dedicated to Gods service for Times deputed to Gods service are not subject to sense therefore not capable of the like by such solemnities as may be fit to maintain that inward devotion which the Ordinances of Gods service to which they are deputed are to be performed with And not only Times Places and Persons are capable of this morall quality of relative Ecclesiasticall Holinesse but whatsoever either by disposition of Gods Law or by mans act is affected to the service of God For so saith our Saviour That the Temple consecrates the gold which it is adorned with and the Altar the gift that is offered upon it and that therefore He that sweareth by the Temple or the Altar sweareth by God to whose service they were offered Mat. XXIII 17 19 20 And the Jews Corban which our Lord reproveth as used to binde that which was against Gods Law Mat. XV. 5. was nothing but an Oath by the Oblations consecrated to the reparations of the Temple as you may see in Grotius And as First-fruits and Tithes which the Law consecrates to God render him sacrilegious and accursed that touches them against the intent of the Law as you see by that allegory of the Prophet Jer. II. 3. Israel is a thing consecrate to the Lord the First-fruit of his revenue all that devoure him are guilty evill haunts them So the Law in obliging men to consecrate what they would to the Lord makes the consecrate thing anathema that is the person accursed that applies it to any other use Levit. XXVII 28. Under the Gospel the difference is onely this that nothing is consecrate by disposition of the Law without the act of man moved by the Law of Christianity to consecrate it According to that difference between the Law and the Gospel alleged before that because the Law constraineth to obedience for fear of mischief the Gospel winneth obedience by love of goodness therefore in correspondence thereunto the Law was to require the maintenance of Gods service under such Penalties as they should not dare to incurre the Gospel by the same freedome of minde which constrained men to give themselves to God was to constrain them to give their goods to the maintenance of his Service For the rest as under the Law the Gold is consecrated by the Temple
and the Sacrifice by the Altar and so all consecration tended to communion with God by the participation of Sacrifices offered to God So having shewed how the Gospel ordaineth that Christians also communicate with God in the Sacrifice of the Crosse by the Sacrament of the Eucharist by the same reason it follows that what is given to build and repair and beautifie Churches to maintain the Assemblies of the Church to support them that minister Gods Ordinances to inable the poor to attend upon the Communion of the same is consecrated by the Altar of the Crosse and the Sacrifice thereof represented in the Eucharist being the chief part of that service which the Church tenders to God and that which is peculiar to Christianity S. Chrysostome truly construes the reason why our Lord would not have Mary Magdalen reproved for pouring out such an expense on his body to no purpose which might have done so much good among the poore Mat. XXVI 11. to be this that Christians might understand themselves to be bound as well to maintain the means of Gods service as the poor that attend upon it And let any man shew me the difference of the sin of Achan from that of Ananias and Sapphira For as he became accursed by touching that which was deputed to maintain Gods service and was so before he denied it So no man can imagine that these had been guiltlesse if they had confessed For they are charged by the Apostle not only for lying to the Holy Ghost but for withdrawing part of the price Acts V. 3. And therefore by the premises having shewed that the goods which were laid down at the Apostles feet were thereby affected applied and deputed to maintain the Body of the Church in the daily Communion of the Service of God especially of the Eucharist which they frequented Acts II. 42 46. it followeth that they were consecrated to God by the Altar as all Oblations of Christians to the maintenance of Gods service are by the Sacrifice of the Crosse represented and commemorated in the Sacrament of the Eucharist being the chief part of the service of God under the Gospel and that which is onely proper to Christians And by consequence that which is consecrate to the service of God under the Gospel is anathema for the same reason as under the Law because they are accursed that take upon them to apply it to any other use These things premised it will not be difficult to determine the limits of Soveraign and Ecclesiasticall Power in the conduct and establishment of matters of Religion in a Christian State Which seeing it chiefly consists in the Right of giving those Laws by which this establishment and conduct is executed and having shewed that the Right of Soveraign Power in Church matters is not destructive but cumulative to the Power of the Church and that there is an Originall Right in the Church of giving Laws as to the Society of the Church It follows that the Right of making those Laws whereby Religion is established in a Christian State belonging both to the Soveraign Power and to the Church are not distinguishable by the subject for I have premised that Soveraign Powers may make Laws of Church matters but by the severall reasons and grounds and intents of both That is to say that the determining of the matter of Ecclesiasticall Laws in Order to the sentence of Excommunication which the Church is able to inforce them with belongs to the Church that is to those whom we have shewed to have that power on behalf of the Church But the enacting of them as Laws of Civile Societies in order to those Privileges and Penalties which States are able to inforce Religion with belongs to the Soveraign Powers that give Law to those States For here it is to be known that any Religion is made the Religion of any State by two manner of means that is of temporall Privileges and temporall Penalties For how much toleration soever is allowed severall Religions in any State none of them can be counted the Religion of the State till it be so privileged as no other can be privileged in that State Though it becomes the Religion of that State still more manifestly when Penalties are established either upon the not exercise of the Religion established or upon the exercise of any other besides it Those of the Congregations seem indeed hitherto to maintain that no Penalty can be inflicted by any State upon any cause of Religion to which Point I will answer by and by Which if it were so then could no Religion be the Religion of any State but by temporall Privileges In the mean time having determined that by the Word of God Christianity is to be maintained by Secular Power and seeing it cannot be ingraffed into any State but by making the Laws thereof the Laws of that State in this doing my conclusion is that the matter of Ecclesiasticall Laws is determinable by the Church the force of them as to such means as the State is able to enact them with must come from the State The reason is first from that of the Apostle pronounced by him in one particular case but which may be generalized to this purpose 1 Cor. VII 20 24. Every one in what state he is called to be a Christian therein let him continue Which if it hold neither can any quality in any Civile Society give any man that Right which ariseth from the Constitution of the Church nor on the contrary Wherefore seeing it is manifest that there is in the Church a Power of giving Laws to every respective part of it as it is granted that there is in all Soveraign Powers in respect of all persons and causes it follows that they are distinguishable by the severall reasons on which they stand and arise and the severall intents to which they operate and the effects they are able to produce Secondly no Religion but Judaism was ever given immediately by God to any State and that by such Laws as determine both the exercise of Religion and the Civile Government of that people But all Nations think they have received Religion from some Divinity which they beleeve and therefore by the Law of Nations the ordering of matters of Religion must needs belong to those by whom and from whom severall Nations beleeve they have received it Much more Christianity received from and by our Lord and his Apostles must needs be referred to the conduct of those whom we have shewed they left trusted with it But the Power to dispose of the exercise of Religion is a point of Soveraignty used by all States according to severall Laws Wherefore Christianity much more obliging all Soveraigns to use this Power to the advancement of it the coactive Power of secular Societies must needs take place much more in establishing Christianity by such constitutions as Christianity may be established with Thirdly the whole Church is by Divine Right one Visible Society
by the Heathen Emperour Aureliane as you may see in Eusebius his Histories VII 30. For though the matter thereof were not evident to him that was no Christian yet the authority might be the support whereof concerned the Peace of the Empire And so it was evident in that case For there being a difference in the Church of Antiochia between the Bishop and some of the Clergy and People and the Synod there assembled having condemned and deposed the Bishop if this deposition were allowed by the Synod of the Church of Rome no man will deny that there was thereby sufficient ground for him that was no Christian to proceed and take away possession of the Church and Bishops house from him that by such authority was deposed And thus you see how true it is which I said that in Christian States the Power of the Church cannot be in force without the Soveraign because Excommunication which is the Sword thereof and the last execution of this spirituall Jurisdiction might be made void otherwise As for the prejudice which may come to a Christian State by a Jurisdiction not depending upon it in point of right but only in point of fact there seem to be two considerable difficulties made The first the Excommunication of the Soveraign Ormore generally thus that the Keys of the Church may then interpose in State matters The second in regard that I have shewed that by the words of our Lord this Power may take place in matters of interesse between party and party For if in any why not in all and if in all where shall the secular Power become that Power that is able to judge all causes being able to govern any State To the first the answer is evident that so farre as Excommunication concerns barely the Society of the Church any person capable of Soveraign Power is liable to it upon the same terms as other Christians are because comming into the communion of the Church upon the same condition as other Christians the failing of this condition must needs render the effect void But if we consider either the temporall force by which it comes to effect or the temporall penalties which attend on it to these which cannot proceed but by the will of the Soveraign it is not possible that he should be liable Thus I had rather distinguish then between the greater Excommunication and the lesse as some doe who conclude that the Soveraign cannot be subject to the greater but to the lesse For there is indeed but one Excommunication as there is but one Communion abstinence from the Eucharist being no permanent but a transient estate under which whosoever comes if he give not satisfaction to the Church becomes contumacious and so liable to the last sentence Let no man marvell at the good Emperour Theodosius giving satisfaction of his penitence to the holy Bishop S. Ambrose The reason was because Christianity then fresh from the Apostles was understood and uncorrupt It was understood that he held not his Empire by being of the Church nor that his subjects ought him any lesse obedience for not being of it He that taught him to be subject to God taught his people also to be subject to him for Gods sake as Christians always were to Heathen Emperours even Persecutors Which if it were received it is not imaginable that the Powers of the world could be prejudiced by any censure of the Church As for the objection that excommunicate persons are not to be conversed with by S. Pauls rule it is answered by all Divines that it ceases in such relations for example of Parents and children as are more ancient then the Society of the Church which it therefore presupposeth and so is to cease in things necessary to civile Society which Christianity as it presupposeth so it inforceth and not overthroweth In like manner it is to be said that all proceedings either of the Popes or of the Scottish Presbyteries in those cases which the burthen of Issachar mentions are the productions of the corruption or misunderstanding of Christianity For as Aristotle says that some things 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 so must we say that those things onely exclude from the Church which by the very nature and essence of them are inconsistent with Christianity being those things which a Christian renounces when he is admitted into the Church Now the affairs of States such as are Treaties and alliances with forein States reason of Government at home in Jurisdiction giving Laws and commands of State are such things as are not necessarily bad or good but may be the subject either of virtue or vice much lesse can it be manifest not only to the Body of Christians but even to the Guides of the Church when Governours forsake and when they cleave to their Christianity though it is certain that they doe either the one or the other always Wherefore for particular actions of the same kinde with those for which private persons are liable when they become notorious Princes also and publick Persons are subject to the censure of the Church But for publick Government the reason whereof must not be known the kinde thereof in the whole exrent being capable of good as well as bad it is nothing but the misunderstanding and corruption of Christianity that ingages the Church in them by the fault of those that by their quality in the Church seek to themselves some interesse in publick affairs which Christianity generally denies to be due And the same is to be said of them that make publick affairs the subject of their prayers and Preaching Which though it may be done to good purpose and in opposition to worse yet seeing Christianity requires not only that it may be so in the Church but also that it may not be otherwise as it must needs proceed from a decay of Christianity so it must needs tend to the utter ruine of it As for the drawing of Civile causes to the cognisance of Ecclesiasticall Judicatories by some things that have been said or done to the advancement of the Presbyteries in Scotland or here it appears there is cause of scruple But it is because the reason is overseen upon which our Lords saying proceeds For if the reason why our Lord will have the differences of Christians ended within the Church is that those that are without may not take notice of the offences that are among Christians this will not hinder Christians to plead before Christians and therefore will hinder no Jurisdiction of civile States as ceasing so farre as the State becomes Christian Wherefore it is not without cause that the Audiences of Bishops have been by the Laws of the Empire and other Christian States succeeding the same limited to such kinds of causes as seemed to stand most upon consideration of charity and so fittest to be sentenced by the Church But Matrimoniall causes seem to me necessarily to belong to this cognisance Because of that particular disposition which our Lord
and effect to the acts of the same But in matters already determined by them as Laws given to the Church if by injury of time the practice become contrary to the Law the Soveraign Power being Christian and bound to protect Christianity is bound to imploy it self in giving strength first to that which is ordained by our Lord and his Apostles By consequence if those whom the power of the Church is trusted with shall hinder the restoring of such Laws it may and ought by way of penalty to such persons to suppresse their power that so it may be committed to such as are willing to submit to the superiour Ordinance of our Lord and his Apostles A thing throughly proved both by the Right of Secular Powers in advancing Christianity with penalties and in establishing the exercise of it and in particular by all the examples of the pious Kings of Gods people reducing the Law into practice and suppressing the contrary thereof Seeing then that it is agreed upon by all that professe the Reformation that many and divers things ordained by our Lord and his Apostles whether to be beleeved or to be practised in the Church were so abolished by injury of time that it was requisite they should be restored though against the will of those that bore that power which the Apostles appointed necessary to conclude the Church it followeth that the necessity of Reformation inferreth not the abolishing of the Succession of the Apostles but that more Laws of our Lord and his Apostles and of more moment were preferred before it where it could not regularly be preserved Which when it may be preserved is to be so far preserved before all designs which may seem to humane judgement expedient to the advancement of Christianity that whosoever shall endevour without such cause to destroy the power derived from the Apostles by conferring it upon those that succeed them not in it and much more whosoever shall doe it to introduce Laws contrary to the Ordinance of the Apostles shall be thereby guilty of the horrible crime of Schism For it is to be remembred that there are some things immediately necessary to the salvation of particular Christians whether concerning Faith or good manners and there are other things necessary to the publick order and peace of the Church that by it Christians may be edified in all matters of the first kinde The denying of any point of the first kinde may for distinctions sake be called Heresie when a man is resolute and obstinate in it But in the other kinde it is not a false opinion that makes a man a Schismatick till he agree to destroy the Unity of the Church for it It can scarce fall out indeed that any man proceed to destroy the Unity of the Church without some false opinion in Christianity Yet it is not the opinion but the destroying of a true or erecting of a false power in the Church that makes Schism And it can scarce fall out that any man should broach a doctrine contrary to Christianity without an intent to make a Sect apart yet onely a false perswasion in matters necessary to salvation is enough to make an Heretick This is the reason that both Heresie and Schism goes many times under the common name of Heresies or Sects among the ancient Fathers of the Church Otherwise it is truly said that Heresie is contrary to Faith Schism to Charity because the crime of Heresie is found in a single person that denies some point of Faith though the name of it be generall onely to those and to all those that make Sects apart In the mean time we must consider that the word Schism signifies the state as well as the crime in which sense all that are in the state of Schism are not in the crime of Schism but those that give the cause of it For as it is resolved that Warre cannot be just on both sides that make War so is it true that the cause of all divisions in the Church must needs be only on one side and not on both And that side which gives the cause are rightfully called Schismaticks though both sides be in the state of Schism as he in S. Augustine said of Tarquin and Lucrece that being two in one act yet one of them onely committed Adultery If then the Laws given by our Lord and his Apostles be restored by consent of some part of the Councell and Synod requisite to oblige any respective part of the Church and the Succession of the Apostles propagated by them alone in opposition to the rest that consent not unto them the cause of Schism cannot lie on this side which concurreth with the Primitive Succession of our Lord and his Apostles but upon them that violate the Communion of the Church by refusing such Laws and the right of such persons as acknowledge the same the condition of the Unity and Communion of the Church consisting as much in the rest of Laws given by our Lord and the Apostles as in that of the Succession and power of the Apostles Which is the case of the Church of England But whoever by virtue of any authority under heaven shall usurp Ecclesiasticall Power shall usurp the Succession of the Apostles and take it from them that rightfully stand possest of it upon pretense of governing the Church by such Laws as he is really perswaded but falsly to be commanded the Church by our Lord and his Apostles this whosoever shall doe or be accessory to is guilty of Schism The issue then of this whole dispute stands upon this point how and by what means it may be evidenced what Laws of the Faith and Manners of particular Christians of the publick Order of the Church have been given the Church by our Lord and his Apostles A point which cannot be resolved aright but by them which resolve aright for what reasons and upon what grounds and motives they are Christians For without doubt the true reasons and motives of Christianity if they be pursued and improved by due consequence will either discover the truth of any thing disputable in the matter of Christianity or that it is not determinable by any revealed truth Here it is much to be considered that the truth of things revealed by God is not manifested to the mindes of them to whom and by whom God reveals them to the World by the same means as to them whom he speaks to by their means Moses and the Prophets our Lord and his Apostles when they were sent to declare the will of God to his People were first assured themselves that what they were sent to declare to the world was first revealed to themselves by God and then were enabled to assure the world of the same By what means they were assured themselves concerns me not here to enquire It is enough that they were always enabled to do such works as might assure the world that they were sent by God For how could they demand
by the immediate dictate of the Spirit by the same reason can conclude nothing to be the will of God and the true intent of his Word without it This if it were meant onely of the testimony of the Spirit of God witnessing with our Spirit that we are the children of God and sealing the assurance of this favour to our persons and actions then would it not take away the grounds upon which and the means by which we are effectually moved and brought to be Christians both in profession and in deed So that by consequence means might be had whereby a man 's own Spirit might be enabled to discern between the dictates of Gods Spirit and that of the world But being advanced in answer to this difficulty as the first ground of faith and the last resolution of it cannot be so understood But of necessity importeth that no man can be assured by the assurance of faith of any truth without that means by which God reveals himself to them by whom he declares his will to others That either any person on behalf of the Church or any private spirit should pretend to any such endowment is contrary to common sense and their own proceedings When they use the like means to inform themselves both why to beleeve the Scripture and what the meaning of it and the will of God is as other men doe And if they doe pretend more they must shew such evidence as God hath ordained to convince the world before they can pretend to oblige any man to beleeve them Besides that so it would not be possible to render a reason why God hath given his Scriptures at all seeing that notwithstanding he must furnish either some persons in behalf of the Church or all beleevers with revelations to convince them what is his will and meaning by the Scriptures But if they admit of such means as God hath appointed Christians to decide whether it be the Spirit of God or of the world that witnesseth with their Spirit then is the question where it was Because as God gives his Spirit to those that are Christians upon such qualities and to such intents as they who pretend to the Spirit of God ought to finde in themselves and to propose to themselves and no other so are they assured that it is the Spirit of God that moves them because they are assured of those qualities and intentions in themselves and by no other meanes Now having shewed before upon what grounds Christianity is to be imbraced I demand whether it be in the compasse of any reason that is convinced of the truth of Christianity to question whether the Scriptures are to be received or not Certainly he were a strange man that should consent to be a Jew or a Mahumetane and yet make a question whether the Book of the Law came from Moses or the Alcoran from Mahomet or not Therefore supposing that we stand convict of the truth of Christianity by the same means we stand assured that God hath caused those great works to be done by Moses and the Prophets by our Lord and his Apostles by which the world stands convict that they were sent by God and by the same that the Scriptures wherein those works and their doctrine is related are from God Neither can the Church act to the assuring of any body herein as the Church but as a multitude of men endowed with common sense which cannot agree to deceive or to be deceived For if the profession of Christianity goe before the being of the Church and Christianity cannot be received till it be acknowledged with the records thereof to be from God then this assurance though it come from the agreement of the men that make the Church goes in nature before the quality of a Church and therefore comes as well from the consent of Jews for the Old Testament as of Christians for the New Nor let it trouble any man that by this means faith may seem to be the work of reason not the grace of God seeing it may very reasonably be demanded Where is the necessity of grace to enable a man to beleeve what he sees reason to beleeve For though the matter of faith be credible of it self yet it is not evident of it self though sufficient reason may be shewed why a man ought to beleeve yet on the other side there are many scandals and stumbling blocks in the way to hinder him from beleeving the chiefe of which is the offence of the Crosse whereof our Lord saith Happy is he that is not offended at me For it cannot seem strange that a man should refuse to beleeve that which he sees sufficient reason to convince him to beleeve when as by beleeving he becomes liable to bear the Crosse of Christ specially not being inforced by the light of reason evidencing the truth of Christianity and determining the assent of the minde as fire does wood to burn but swaied by externall motives working upon the minde according as they finde it disposed to goodnesse For when this disposition is not perfectly wrought by Gods grace nothing hinders sufficient motives to prove uneffectuall to them whom the Crosse of Christ scandalizeth This being resolved it follows by necessary consequence upon what reasons and by what means the meaning of the Scriptures or rather the will of God concerning all matters questioned in Christianity is determinable For it is not the same thing many times to know the meaning of the Scriptures as it is to know how far it is Gods will that it binde the Church The name of the Scripture inforceth no more but that all is true which it containeth Now it containeth many times the sayings and doings of evill men as well as of good of Satan himself sometimes wherein it intends onely to assure that such and such things were said and done And not to insist on the Law of Moses which is all the word of God and no part of it binding to us as the Law of Moses because another disposition of Gods will may appear by other Scriptures in the New Testament it self are found many things that now have not the force of precepts though it appear that they did sometimes binde the Church Such is the practice of the Feasts of Love which S. Paul presses so hard as I shewed afore such is his precept that women be vailed men bare when they pray in the Church the decree of the Apostles at Jerusalem against eating blood and things strangled and sacrificed to Idols the precept of S. James of anointing the sick the ceremonies of Baptism which I shewed afore out of S. Paul to have been in use in the Primitive Church yea the very custome of drenching in Baptism which no man doubts but the institution signifies and yet is now scarce any where in use If therefore there be question of the will of God what is the true meaning of the Scriptures and how far it bindes the Church the
same common sense of all men that assures the truth of the Scriptures must assure it The knowledge of originall languages the comparison of like passages the consideration of the consequence and text of the Scripture the records of ancient Writers describing affairs of the same times and if there be any other helps to understand the Scriptures by they are but the means to improve common sense to convince or be convinced of it If that will not serve to procure resolution there remains nothing else but the consent of the Church testifying the beleef and practice of the first times that received the Scriptures and thereby convincing common sense of the meaning of them as the intent of all Laws is evidenced by the originall practice of the same So that this whole question What Laws God hath given his Church fals under the same resolution by which matters of faith were determined in the ancient Councels in which that which originally and universally had been received in the Church that was ordained by them to be retained for the future as demonstrated to have been received from our Lord and his Apostles by the same kinde of evidence for which we receive Christianity though not so copious as of lesse importance And therefore it will not serve the turn to object that the mystery of iniquity was a working even under the Apostles as S. Paul saith 2 Thess II. 7. to cause the beleef and practice of the Primitive Church always to stand suspect as the means to bring in Antichrist For it is not enough to say that Antichrist was then a coming unlesse a man will undertake to specifie and prove by the Scriptures that the being of Antichrist consists in that which he disputes against For if we will needs presume that the government of the Church which was received in the next age to the Apostles is that wherein Antichristianism consists because the mystery of iniquity was a work under the Apostles why shall not the Socinians argue with as good right that the beleef of the Trinity and Incarnation is that wherein Antichristianism consists being received likewise in the next age to the Apostles under whom the mystery of iniquity was a work Or rather why is either the one or the other admitted to argue from such obscure Scriptures things of such dangerous consequence unlesse they will undertake further to prove by the Scriptures that Antichrist is Antichrist for that which they cry down Which I doe not see that they have endevoured to doe for the things in question among us about the Government of the Church Besides this my reason carries the answer to this objection in it because it challenges no authority but that of historicall truth to any record of the Church Appealing for the rest to common sense to judge whether that which is so evidenced to have been first in practice agreeing with that which is recorded in the Scriptures be not evidently the meaning of those things which we finde by the Scriptures to have been instituted by our Lord and his Apostles And this it is which for the present I have pretended to prove by this Discourse Which being spent chiefly in removing the difficulty of those Scriptures which have been otherwise understood in this businesse confesseth the strength of the cause to stand upon the originall generall and perpetuall practice of the Church determining the matters in difference by the same evidence as Christianity stands recommended to us proportionably to the importance of them Which as it is not such as is able to convince all judgements which are not all capable to understand the state of the whole Church yet is it enough to maintain the possession of right derived to this instant so that no power on earth can undertake to erect Ecclesiasticall authority without and against the succession of the Apostles upon the ground of a contrary perswasion without incurring the crime of Schism I will not leave this point without saying something of their case that have Reformed the Church without authority of Bishops that have abolished the Order and vested their Power in which I have shewed that they succeed the Apostles as to their respective Churches w th dependence on the whol upon Presbyteries or whatsoever besides Which to decline here might make men conceive that I have a better or worse opinion of them then indeed I have For a Rule and modell or Standard to measure what ought to be judged in such a case suppose we that which is possible in nature the terms being consistent together though not at all likely to come to passe in the course of the world a Christian people greater or lesse destitute of Pastors endowed with the Chief authority left by the Apostles in all Churches I suppose in this case no man can doubt but they are bound to admit the same course as those that are first converted to be Christians That is to receive Pastors from them that are able to found and erect Churches and to unite them to the Communion of the whole Church which is no lesse authority then that of a Synod of Bishops that onely or the equivalent of it in the person of an Apostle or Commissary of an Apostle being able to give a Chief Pastor to any Church But suppose further that this authority cannot be had shall we beleeve that they shall be tied to live without Ecclesiasticall communion When it is agreed that as the Unity of the Church is part of the substance of the Christian Faith necessary to the salvation of all so the first Divine Precept that those Christians shall be bound to is to live in the Society of a Church For where severall things are commanded by God whereof the one is the means whereby the other is attained it is manifest that the Chief Precept is that which commandeth the end and that which commandeth the means subordinate to the other Now it is manifest that all Powers and all Offices endowed with the same in the Church are Ordained by God and enjoined the Church to the end that good Order may be preserved in the Church And good Order is enjoined as the means to preserve Unity and the Unity of the Church commanded as the being of that Society whereby Christians are edified both to the knowledge and exercise of Christianity by communicating with the Church especially in the Service of God and in those Ordinances wherein he hath appointed it to consist Seeing then this edification is the end for which the Society of the Church subsisteth and all Pastors and Officers ordained as means to procure it as it is Sacrilege to seek the end without the means when both are possible so I conceive it would be Sacrilege not to seek the end without the means when both are not Now it is manifestly possible that the edification of the Church may be procured effectually by those that receive not their Power or their Office from persons endowed with
commendeth their faith when he reckoneth their sufferings among those great effects which it brought forth Heb. XI 35 36. And upon this account it is that in propounding this objection I said that it is taken out of the Scriptures not meaning thereby the Books of the Maccabees but those Scriptures which by consequence seem to approve of the Maccabees proceedings For on the other side it is manifest that they justified their arms upon title of Religion by the first breaking out of it 1 Mac. II. 24 26 27. where the zeal of the Law and the example of Phinehas is expressed to be that which moved Mattathias to kill the Jew whom he saw sacrificing to Idols and to maintain it by arms Whereby it is manifest that out of zeal to the Law they took arms to defend it lest it should be extinguished by the Tyranny of Antiochus and therefore that when their arms took effect and purchased them freedome and the Soveraignty to the race of Mattathias all this they held by Religion and by no other title And for this reason it is that they are called Maccabees though other extravagant reasons have been imagined by men of excellent learning For it is to be observed that all those that suffered as well as fought in this cause are called Maccabees no lesse then Judas Maccabaeus and therefore the histories of their acts are called the Books of the Maccabees in which is comprised as well the story of the Mother the seven children and others that suffered for the Law as the acts of Judas and his Successors And Josephus his Book in praise of that Mother and her children is entitled 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The reason of which is found in the Syriack in which language 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifieth Zelotes as you have it in Ferrarius his Nomenclator Syriacus And that this was the Title of their arms is more manifest by the case of the Jews under Caligula when out of his madnesse he commanded to set up his statue in the Temple at Jerusalem For as by Philo de Legatione ad Caium we understand that they were willing to undergo any thing and continue in obedience so they might enjoy their Religion So Josephus dissembleth not in the relation of that business Antiq. XVIII 11. that they would have taken arms rather then endure it if Caligula had not been slain in the mean time The clearing of this difficulty is to be fetched from the difference between the Law and the Gospel expressed in the words of our Lord to his Disciples that required him to call for fire from heaven upon those that would not entertain him Luke IX 55 56. Ye know not of what spirit ye are For the Son of man is not sent to destroy mens souls that is their lives but to save them For the Law worketh wrath and where there is no Law there is no transgression and by Law is the knowledge of sin saith the Apostle Rom. IV. 20. V. 15. VII 7. Therefore the Law suffered him that was next of kin to any man that was slain to kill him that slew him before it was judged whether he was slain by chance or by malice Num. XXXV 16 Therefore the Law commanded him that was tempted to Idolatry to seek the death of him that tempted him were he his father or never so near of kin Deut. XIII 6 11. In fine the Law being the condition of a temporall estate assigned at first by God to the people of Israel observing it can there be any marvell that it might be lawfull for that people to defend it by force and by that defense to regain the same estate Or will this draw any consequence in Christianity to make it lawfull to take arms upon the title thereof and so to hold estates of this world by the same title in case those arms take effect For the Gospel is the condition of life everlasting promised to those that embrace it including the Crosse of Christ and therefore renouncing all advantage of this world and equally belonging to all people and therefore maintaining all in the same estate of this world which it finds Therefore the zeal of Elias when he punished with fire from heaven those that attempted to seize him at the unjust command of an Idolatrous King our Lord declares not to sute with the Spirit of the Gospel the profession thereof being to take up Christs Crosse and to bear it with patience though under the Law it might be commendable Whereunto agreeth that which I said before that Heresie and Schism upon causes onely contrary to Christianity and that are not against the Law of Nature and Nations are no capitall crimes in Christian States And that in stead of death which the Law inflicteth upon him that obeyeth not the Consistory but causeth Schism the punishment allotted by the Gospel is onely to bee least in the kingdome of Heaven For if Soveraign Powers lawfully established being Christian are not enabled by their Christianity to inflict death on the said crimes when setting aside Christianity they are not liable to it much lesse is any man under a Soveraign Power enabled by his Christianity to use the Sword wherein Soveraignty consists for the maintenance of it Neither is it contrary to this that under the Gospel S. Peter punishes Ananias and Saphira with death and the Apostles as I shewed before were endowed with a miraculous power of inflicting bodily punishment upon those which obeyed them not the effects whereof were seen upon those whom they cast out of the Church as also upon Elymas struck with blindnesse by S. Paul for resisting his Gospel Nor that the souls under the Altar Apoc. VI. 10. pray for the vengeance of their bloud to be shewed upon the inhabitants of the earth For that which this Propheticall Vision representeth is to be understood sutably to Christianity and to the Kingdome of God attained by it Since therefore revenge is contrary to the principles of Christianity we cannot imagine that blessed souls desire it but the cry which they make must be understood to be the provocation of God to vengeance which their sufferings produce So much more pertinently attributed to blessed souls in as much as being acquainted with Gods counsels they approve and rejoyce in his Justice and the advancement of his Church by the means of it Now the power granted the Apostles of inflicting bodily punishments upon those that disobeyed them tended first to manifest that God was present in the Church and by consequence to subdue the world to Christianity and to win authority to the Church and the censures of it Whereas Elias when he called for fire from heaven as the Apostles desired our Lord might have been secured himself by the like miracles without destroying his enemies So he caused Baals Priests to be put to death not to vindicate the cause in debate which was already done by a miracle but to doe vengeance on them as malefactors
And so Elizeus curseth the children to death on purpose to punish the affront offered his person In all which particulars you have manifest characters of the Law inflicting death for the punishment of sin whereas under the Gospel which giveth life the inflicting of bodily punishment serveth to procure the good of the world by manifesting the truth of the Gospel and the presence of God in his Church which was known and supposed under the Law because those who had received the Law could not make any question that God was amongst his people and spoke to them by his Prophets When I say that it might be lawfull to take arms upon the title of Religion under the Law I say not that it was so in all cases or that it was not lawfull for the Jews to be subject to forein Powers which was the doctrine of Judas of Galilee complained of by Josephus but that it was possible for some case to fall out wherein it might be lawfull As for the conceit of Judas of Galilee it is manifestly taken away by Gods command to the Jews under Nabuchodorosor Jer. XXIX 7. Seek the peace of the City to which I have sent you Captives for in the peace thereof you shall have peace And it is most remarkable that our Lord being falsly accused of this doctrine to Pilate by the Jews it pleased God to suffer it so far to prevail afterwards that the arms which they took afterwards against the Romanes and the miseries which they endured by the Zelotes and finally the ruine of the City Temple and Nation must needs be imputed to this doctrine which they falsly accused our Lord of to gain the good will of the Romanes But of Christianity it must be said on the contrary that there is no case possible wherein it can be just to take arms for preservation or reformation of it upon the title thereof that is to say where there is not a Power of bearing arms established by some other title of humane right For where there is any such Power and Right established upon a title which the Law of Nations justifieth it is not to be said that Christianity voideth or extinguisheth the same seeing it hath been said that it preserveth the state of this world upon the same terms in which they are when it is imbraced But neverthelesse it moderateth the use of it so that it cannot with Christianity be imploied in very many cases in which the Law of Nature and Nations justifies the use of it These things thus premised it will be easie to shew that the Presbyterians offer wrong when they demand that the superiority of Bishops over Presbyters be proved to be of Divine Right by some Precept of Gods Law recorded in the Scriptures Supposing that otherwise it will be in the Secular Power of it self to erect an Ecclesiasticall Power by taking it from them that have it and giving it to them that have it not and requiring that so it be done For it is notorious to the world that from the beginning they claimed that Presbyteries should be erected in stead of the Government of the Church of England upon this ground that the Presbyteries are commanded by God and that therefore the superiority of Bishops as contrary to his Law is to be abolished And that upon this pretense the people were drawn in to seek the innovation endevoured at this time So that to require now that it be proved that the superiority of Bishops is commanded by God to be unchangeable by men otherwise that it be changed is to require that the conclusion may stand without any premises to prove it Notwithstanding to passe by this advantage suppose we the superiority of Bishops neither forbidden nor commanded but introduced by Ecclesiasticall Right grounded upon the Power given the Church of giving Laws to the Church by determining that which Gods Law determineth not Supposing but not granting this to be true it will remain neverthelesse without the compasse of any Secular Power upon earth to erect this Ecclesiasticall Power by taking it from them which have it and giving it to them which have it not For wheresoever there is a Church and the Government thereof not contrary to Gods Law in those hands which have it by mans there the Apostles precept of obeying the Governors of the Church 1 Thess V. 14. Heb. XIII 17. must needs oblige the People to those Governors that are established not against Gods Law And this Precept of the Apostle being of that Divine Right by which Christianity subsisteth cannot be voided by any Secular Power by which the Church subsisteth not in point of Right but onely is maintained in point of fact For the obligation which they have to the Church and the Unity thereof and the Order by which that Unity is preserved and the Government in which that Order consisteth being more ancient then the maintenance of Christianity by the State cannot be taken away by any obligation or interesse thereupon arising And therefore as the first Christians that were under Christian Powers in the time of Constantine were bound to adhere to the Pastors which they had by the Law of the Church for which reason neither did Constantine Constantius or Valens ever endevour to intrude those Bishops which they were seduced to think necessary for the quiet of some Churches being indeed dangerous to Christianity by their own Power but by a pretended legall Act of the Church after Constantine took Christianity into the protection of the Empire upon the same terms as afore So are all Christians to the worlds end obliged to adhere to the Pastors which they shall have by the Law of the Church not contrary to Gods Law against the command of any Secular Power to obey others And to demand that Ecclesiasticall Power not contrary to Gods Law be dissolved by Secular to which the persons endowed therewith are Subjects is to demand that there remain no Christians in England that can be content to suffer for their Christianity by obeying Gods Law before mans especially when they can obey both acting by Gods and suffering by mans But though I insist upon this right of the Church yet it is not my purpose to balk the fruit of the Divine Right of Bishops upon such terms as it hath been asserted That is to say as that which no man may lawfully destroy though not as that which being destroied voideth the being of a Church if it can be done without Schism because not commanded particular Christians as the substance of Christianity but the Society of the Church for the maintenance and support of it For if no Secular Power be able to give that Power to the Presbyteries which must be taken from the Bishops supposing that the superiority of Bishops stands neither by nor against the Law of God but onely by the Law of the Church according to Gods How much more when it is demonstrated that it subsisteth by the Act of the
his Apostles extending it in one visible Society beyond the bounds of any Dominion with equall interesse in the parts of it through severall Dominions what title but force can any State have to doe it if we presuppose the Society of the Church as such unable to doe it Therefore by the Society of the Church and by Christians as Members thereof it must be done whatsoever is done either in Reforming the Church or in Separating from the Church And therefore the proceeding of the Congregations when they separate from the Church of England by a Right founded upon the Constitution of the Church is more agreeable to Christianity then the proceeding of the Presbyteries when they pretend to Reform the Church of England by the Power of the Parliament supposing it to be as great as any Secular Power can be in Church matters But I intend not hereby to grant that it is a rightfull Title upon which those of the Congregations separate from the Church of England For as men cannot make themselves Christians but the doing of it must presuppose a Church as at the first it presupposed the Power of constituting a Church estated by our Lord upon his Apostles Because our Lord hath required of those that will be saved not onely to beleeve his Gospel but also to professe Christianity and this Profession to be consigned in the hands of those whom he trusteth with the conduct of his Church and by them accepted because if not sincere and complete it is not to be admitted so the continuance in the Communion of the Church presupposing an acknowledgement of the Christianity professed therein to contain nothing destructive to salvation professeth an obligation of acknowledging the Governours thereof in order to the same And this obligation unavoidable by the premises unlesse Christian people by those Governours appear to be defeated of the benefit of such Laws given the Church by our Lord and his Apostles as appear to be of greater consequence to the Service of God for which the Society of the Church subsists then the personall succession of Governours and the Unity of the Church wherein it consisteth can be imagined to be Which in our present case is so far from being true that the premises being true all the particulars for which the Congregations separate and which the Presbyteries would Reform the Chief Power of the Clergy over the People the Superiority of Bishops above Presbyters the dependence of Congregations upon the City Church the Power of giving Laws to the Church the Right of First-fruits Tithes and all Consecrate things and above all the Unity of the Church and the Personall Succession of Governours in which it consisteth are all demonstrated to have been ordained by the Apostles The same is to be said of the Ceremonies as to the whole kinde though not to the particulars questioned For first it is proved that the Rule of Charity requires all Christians to forbear the use of that freedome which Christianity alloweth in all things determined by the Law of the Church not contrary to Gods Secondly though it be granted that the particulars questioned were not instituted by the Apostles for indeed the customes of severall Nations that have received Christianity are so different that for example that which the Apostle commandeth that men pray covered 1 Cor. XI 3. cannot be used among those Nations that uncover the head in sign of reverence which the Ancients did not And this is the true reason why the same Ceremonies of Divine Service are not in use now as under the Apostles yet whosoever shall separate from the Church upon this ground that significative Ceremonies are not to be used in the Service of God shall doe it to establish a Law contrary to the Apostles who ordained such to be used as I shewed afore Besides the Church of England and Governours thereof doe not maintain any infallible Power of conducting the Church professing themselves the Reformation which their Predecessors made and therefore are so far from refusing any Law of God to be a Law of this Church that if any Humane Constitution had been recommended to them evidently necessary or usefull to make the Laws of our Lord and his Apostles effectuall to this particular Church by such an authority as the Secular Power hath over them it is visible to all English that for the Peace of the Church and themselves they would not have refused it And therefore the true reason of this Separation or Reformation is because they will not part with that Power which is in them derived from the Apostles and at once with the Unity of the Church necessarily in this Case depending on the same I suppose what will be answered that all this is done to Reform the Church to bring in plentifull and powerfull Preaching and Praying as the Spirit shall indite for not knowing any thing else to be pretended and having shewed the rest of the change to be contrary to the Ordinances of the Apostles though I see no man is so hard hearted as not to think his own design to be the Reformation of the Church without ever proving it to be so yet I must needs think it part of my charge to say somewhat also to this I doe acknowledge then a charge upon the Church to provide that Christians made members of the Church by Baptisme be taught more and more in the true intent of their Christianity and exhorted to the performance of it by virtue of the Precept of our Lord Mat. XXVIII 19 20. Goe Preach and make Disciples all Nations baptizing them in the Name of the Father Son and Holy Ghost Teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you Which being given the Apostles is by the same reason given to all whom they should assume or Ordain or cause to be Ordained to exercise their Power or any part of it in dependence upon the same and according as the same should determine in time or place But that any thing is determined as of Divine Right or by the Scriptures when where how often how seldome in what manner and how frequent Preaching is by the Church to be furnished to the Church he will make himselfe ridiculous that undertakes to affirm That the Church is to endevour that this Office be as frequent as may be to the edification of the Church appears indeed by the Scriptures Not those which speak of publishing the Gospell under the terms of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or any equivalent as Rom. X. 14-1 Tim. IV. 2 5. 1 Cor. IX 16. But those that expresse the diligence of the Apostles and Apostolicall persons of their time in teaching the Assemblies of Christians Acts II. 42 46. V. 42. VI. 2 4. XI 26. and the frequenting of this Office in those times 1 Cor. XIV 1 Tim. V. 17. Rom. XII 6. 7. But that it should be so easie for them that now are admitted to the Service of the Church to
the Church originally always every where hath professed and used From them let them seek the communion of the Church not onely in the exercise of such Christian Ordinances as men cast upon desert coasts and utterly destitute of Ecclesiasticall Society for the present for so our distractions have made us can participate in but also in such acts of the Power of the Keys as passe not the inward court of the conscience Neither let them ever think themselves necessitated to communicate with Schisme while the Law which is the source of all Laws and the persons which are the seed of all publick persons of the Church continue And let them know further that in adhering to the Society of a Church never so much destroied by force no Secular Power whether lawfull or unlawfull shall ever have more rightfull title to persecute them then the Romane Emperours had to persecute the Apostles and Primitive Christians part of their profession being not to defend themselves by force grounded upon the title of Christianity but to suffer with patience what force shall inflict for it Which doing as the purchase is not of this world so let them not doubt to finde the effect of the promises which are to come A REVIEW CHAP. I. SInce the writing of this Discourse I have understood by relation and by some Pamphlets that there is one opinion on foot among the many of this time that there is no such thing as a Society of the Church by the Ordinance of our Lord and the institution of his Apostles That wheresoever we reade of the Church in the Scriptures there we are to understand no more but onely a number of men that are Christians who may or ought to assemble together for the service of God as they find opportunity and means But that there should be thought to be any condition of communicating in the Service of God which should make all Christians a Society called the Church as excluding those that are not qualified with it this they think to be an Imposture that hath made way for Antichrist And though this opinion be so groundlesse that very few Readers will expect any opposition to be made yet because my intent was by this Discourse to improve the Reasons heretofore advanced and to try the effect and consequence of them in destroying the grounds of the divisions framed among us And because if that which I propound be the truth it will with a little husbanding be effectuall to convince all manner of errors it will be requisite here to give notice that all the reasons which this first Chapter produceth to prove the Power of the Keys and the punishment of Excommunication the effect thereof to belong to the Church are effectuall to prove the Society of the Church which this Power constitutes and therefore the effect thereof evidenceth And truly though there is an infinite distance between the productions and consequences of this opinion and that of Erastus in as much as this manifestly tendeth to challenge to all Christians freedome of doing what they please in the exercise of their Christianity without any account to the State under which they live that of Erastus challenging to the State all Power to govern all Christians in their Christianity yet if we consider the ground on which both stand they will appear to be as the Rivers that rise out of Apenninus which empty themselves some into the Sea of Tuscany others into the Gulf of Venice For I suppose every mans common reason will furnish him so much of the metaphysicks as to make it appear that every thing which hath a beeing is by that beeing distinct from other things So that if there be no difference between the Society of the Church and that of the State when it professes Christianity but that both make one Community Corporation or Commonwealth as that of the ancient people of God under the Law then is there no Society of a Church when the State is Christian seeing it is agreed upon on all hands that there is one of the State and this opinion inforces that there is no more but one True it is that there are two things to say either that before Constantine the Power of Excommunication stood onely by Humane right that is by custome of the Church or that by the Ordinance of our Lord and his Apostles it was to stand onely before Christianity were received by Kingdoms and Commonwealths but afterwards the Power of governing the Church hitherto in the Body of the Church to be dissolved into the Secular Power of the State But whether this or that in all cases he that taketh away the Power of the Keys in opening and that of Excommunication in shutting up the Church must needs appear to take away the Society and Communion of a Church either because it never was or because it ceaseth when the State becomes Christian This consideration improves very much the reasons of this Chapter against Erastus making his opinion liable to all those Scriptures which acknowledge a Society of the Church and the sense of all Christians which suppose the same And deserveth here to be represented because it may be observed that the proceeding of the Discourse did not give leave to presse it to this effect For the intent of it being to limit the concurrence of Secular and Ecclesiasticall Power in Church matters it was necessary to declare in the first place upon what ground God hath instituted the Society of the Church by Revelation from above having before constituted civile Societies of the same persons whereof the Church consisteth by the Law of Nature and Nations and the operation of his ordinary Providence Especially seeing that Christianity addresseth it self to all Nations and therefore intendeth to constitute one Church of all civile Societies which imbrace the same For seeing it is manifest that Religion hath always been a very generall Title of many Wars and commotions against the Publick peace and that therefore all States must needs be jealous of that Religion which asks no leave of the State to beleeve what it beleeves but professes an obligation of beleeving though never so contrary to the Laws of the State it appears to have been requisite that there should be in Christianity some condition that might clear it from this jealousie especially because one Society of the Church consisting of the persons which constitute many States must needs be concluded in point of conscience by a Power of the Church not derived from that of the State and so possibly the Subjects of a State be concluded in conscience by strangers to that State as they are members of the Church This is the difficulty which was to be removed in the beginning of this Discourse that it might appear no ways prejudiciall to civile Societies that God should institute one Society of the Church to consist of all persons of severall States that professe Christianity And the removing of this difficulty consists in the
right understanding of Christs Crosse and the profession of it which is the substance of Christianity For if we be called to the Crosse of Christ by our Christianity we cannot thereby be called to any advantage estate or possession of this world which we have not by our quality in the State And when it is said that temporall dominion is not founded in Grace it is as much as if it were said that it is not founded in Christianity because the great Grace of God in giving Christ is the ground of all other grace tending to life everlasting Now if Christianity import no right no interesse no advantage of this world but maintaineth the State of this world in the same condition which it findeth when the world imbraces Christianity because it obligeth all men to yeeld obedience to Soveraign Powers which maintain all men in possession of their rights for conscience sake then is the difficulty removed neither can it be prejudiciall to States that the persons whereof they consist are called by God to a Society of the Church subsisting by the grant and patent of God and not of any State If it be thus the question will be asked in the next place How a Society of men can subsist in this world without any privilege or right of this world and seeing it must be the grant of some privilege from God which the world gives not that must make the Church a Society Community Corporation or Spirituall Commonwealth what this privilege is and wherein it consisteth For to the constitution of this Society there goes more then to beleeve the Faith with the heart which being of it self invisible cannot be sufficient to constitute the Society of the Church which must be visible More then to professe Christianity to the world for so doe they we see that dispute that there is no such thing as any Society of the Church because they suppose not that Christianity obligeth them to communicate in the publick Service of God and the Ordinances wherein it consisteth But this being supposed together with the condition upon which men are admitted to Christianity as the condition upon which they communicate in the same there needs nothing else to make the Church such a Society as we speak of It may perhaps seem strange that this privilege of holding Assemblies for the publick Service of God and the obligation which all Christians are under of communicating in the same should be advanced for the ground upon which all the right of the Church standeth seeing it is but collected by consequence and not expresly laid down in the Scriptures that there is such a Precept or privilege For that this is the ground upon which the Society of the Church standeth and the source from whence all the right thereof issueth is not matter of faith or salvation but of Theologicall Discourse by consequence of reason to be drawn out of the Scripture without which they may be as good Christians which without it cannot acquit themselves of those difficulties which he that knoweth the ground from whence the rights of the Church by consequence of reason may be deduced shall be able to resolve Here then we have a privilege because granted by God against all the Powers of the world not as to use any force of this world to defend our selves in it for then should the Power of the Sword depend upon the constitution of the Church but as to God to secure Christians in conscience to God in case they disobey the Powers of the world to whom they are always bound to be subject when they forbid them to communicate in the Service of God at the Assemblies of the Church which God commandeth But no privilege of this world which counts it no advantage to suffer for that duty to God which flesh and bloud could spare with ease And by virtue of this Patent or Charter-privilege from God the Church is constituted a Visible Society and Community of all Christians though to an invisible purpose It will not be out of the way to remember here a passage of Plinies Epistles X. 97. by which it may appear how the Assemblies of the Church were forbidden by the Romanes when he says that the Apostate Christians pleaded for themselves that they had not frequented the Assemblies of the Church since that according to the instructions of Trajane he had by his Edict interdicted Corporations which he cals Hetaerias and the Laws Collegia or Colleges Digest XLVII 23. For seeing on the one side Tertullian de Jejunio cap. XIII argueth upon supposition that the Assemblies of Christians were not against the Laws when he writ on the other side it appears by the Laws 1 3 ff de Collegiis Corporibus that the Emperors by their instructions to the Governours of Provinces and the Senate by their Decrees did make such Societies unlawfull as often as they found cause it seems that so often as they pleased they comprised the Christians within those Laws and that when the Christians were comprised in those Laws their Assemblies were thereby interdicted as they were by Plinies Edict Josephus truly Antiq. XIV 17. recordeth a Decree of Julius Caesar by which he declareth that when he interdicted other Societies of that nature he excepted the Assemblies of the Jews So that since it appears that for divers years after the death of our Lord the Christians went for Jews without distinction at Rome it is probable that at the first they were not inquired into by any Law of this kinde because the Jews were not liable to the like But that when they were inquired into they held themselves tied to assemble notwithstanding these Laws appears by Pliny because it is manifest that those who pleaded for themselves that they had left the Assemblies of the Church were Apostates This privilege of holding Assemblies granted Christianity by Divine right on purpose to constitute the Community of the Church is supposed in that notable Discourse of S. Paul Eph. IV. 4-16 wherein the Apostle declareth as I have shewed p. 218. that God hath appointed two sorts of Graces in his Church which may be distinguished by the terms of corporall and spirituall Corporall in supporting the assemblies thereof by the goods of this world and spirituall in edifying the Church to the perfection of Christianity at those Assemblies So that the end of all the Graces which God hath given his Church being the edification of the Church the means of that edification the frequentation of the Assemblies thereof and the condition of that means the Unity of the Church it must needs appear that the Apostle supposeth a Society of the Church because he argueth upon the means which God hath provided to maintain the visible assemblies thereof in Unity so that all might be edified at those Assemblies to perfection in Christianity For seeing the unity of Ecclesiasticall Assemblies importeth the Communion of all Christians in all the Offices of Divine Service it
is manifest that he which requireth the Unity of Ecclesiasticall Assemblies supposeth a Society of the Church to procure and maintain the same But it is not this passage of S. Paul alone wherein this privilege is supposed intimated or expressed but wheresoever there is mention in any part of Scriptures of any Ordinance of the Service of God instituted or exercised at the Assemblies of Gods faithfull people provided that it may appear otherwise by the Scripture to be common to the Law and the Gospel there you have the Charter or Patent of this grant and privilege and by consequence of the Society of the Church founded upon it But though Erastus securely taketh it for granted that Christian States have right to exercise their Soveraign Power in Church matters because it was so in the Synagogue yet I doe not understand how he would convince them that at this time deny this consequence among us Seeing there is so much difference between the Law and the Gospel between the Church and the Synagogue that that which is held in the one cannot be presumed to hold under the other without a reason common to both And so far as that reason prevails and no further must the Power and Interesse of States in Church matters be understood to prevail And truly there is a saying of S. Jeromes which may justly move a tender spirit to doubt whether this Interesse of States in Church matters be from God or not For seeing it is most true and visible to experience which he says Ecclesiam postquam coepit habere Christianos Magistratus factam esse opibus majorem virtutibus autem minorem That the Church since it began to have Christian Magistrates is become greater in wealth or power but lesse in virtues And that it is a presumption in reason that that which goeth before is the cause of that which followeth upon it when no other cause appeareth well may it be doubted that the Interesse of Secular Powers in Church matters is not from God from which so great a decay of Christianity proceedeth which must not be imputed to any thing which God hath appointed To which agreeth that Legend in the life of Pope Sylvester which saith that when Constantine had endowed the Church so largely there was a voice from heaven heard to say Hodie venenum effusum est in Ecclesiam To day is there poison poured out upon the Church The reason then which here I render upon which the Kings of Gods ancient people had that power in maters of Religion which by the Scriptures we know they did exercise I hope will appear reasonable to them that have perused the IV Chapter and seen how it is not destructive but cumulative to that which by the Law in matters of the Law is given to the Consistory And since it accrued to the King not by the Law because not constituted by it but by the desire of the People admitted and assented unto by God by which he became Head of a People already in Covenant with God what difference is there between this case and the case of a whole people together with the Powers of the same converted to Christianity but this that the Israelites were in Covenant with God before they were under Kings for though Moses and the Judges had Regall Power yet it was not by a standing Law Christian Nations under the Powers of the World before they became Christian Unlesse it be further that the Church is one of all Nations the Synagogue of equall extent with the People of Isâ—ael which is not of consequence to this purpose The Apostle rendring a reason why he commands Secular Powers to be prayed for at the Assemblies of the Church 1 Tim. II. 2 3 4. assigneth the end of them to be That we may lead a quiet life in all godlinesse and honesty Which is manifestly said in respect of Secular Powers that are not Christian For of them the Church justly expects protection and quietnesse paying them prayers subjection and duties But he addes further this reason Because this is good and acceptable to God our Saviour who would have no man to perish but to come to the knowledge of his truth If then the will of God be that the Soveraign Powers of the Gentiles be converted to Christianity is it not his will that they imploy themselves to the advancement of it not onely as Christians but as Soveraigns which cannot be expected from Gentiles There is reason therefore to ground this Interesse upon the declared will of God concerning the calling of the Gentiles the Apostle having declared that their Secular Powers are invited to the Faith and the Prophesies of the Old Testament having declared that their Kings Queens should come to the Church and advance it Psal II. 10 11 12. LXXII 10 11. Es XLIX 23. LX. 13. This reason is far more effectuall to me by the Prophesies left the Church in the Apocalypse The main scope and drift whereof I am much perswaded to be nothing else but to foretell the conversion of the Romane Empire to Christianity and the punishment of the Heathens that persecuted the same For if the intent of those Prophesies be to shew that it was Gods will that the Empire should become Christian and that the reign of the Saints upon earth there foretold is nothing else but the advancement of Christianity to the Government of the Empire and by consequence of other Kingdomes into which the Empire was to be dissolved it cannot be doubted that Christian Powers attain the same right in matters of Religion which the Kings of Gods ancient People always had by the making of Christianity the Religion of any State This opinion it was not my purpose to publish at the writing of this Discourse because it is like to become a mark of contradiction to the most part being possessed more or lesse of a far other sense But having considered since how many and horrible scandals are on foot by the consequences of that sense so that I cannot condemne my self of giving scandall by publishing the best means I can see to take it away and having met with another reason necessitating me to declare it for the effectuall proceeding of this Discourse I will put it down in the Review of the last Chapter where that necessity rises desiring those that seek further satisfaction in this reason to reade it there for that purpose As for the objection that was made from the decay of Christianity after the Powers of the World protected it and enriched the Church it is a meer mistake of that which is accidentall for the true cause For the coming in of the World to the Church is one thing and the Power of the State in Church matters is another though this depend upon that And it is true that the coming of the World into the Church was the decay of Christianity but the Power of the State in the Church is a prop to sustain it from
thought that I make it a difficult task to prove the Power of Excommunication to belong to the Church when I premise to that purpose an assumption so hard to beleeve as this is that the Church by the discipline of the Apostles as well as by the practice and Rules of the Primitive times was not bound to re-admit to the Communion of the Church those that had fallen from their Christianity by sins most destructive to the same But it is to be considered that to the validity of this argument it is onely requisite to shew that those that had fallen were to sue to be admitted to Penance in the first place that upon satisfaction given of the sincerity of their resolution towards Christianity they might be readmitted to the Communion of the Church All which supposeth that before such satisfaction given they had forfeited the same And the argument being effectuall upon these terms must needs convince so much the more if it can further appear that in case of the most hainous offenses it was in the disposition of the Church to readmit them to Communion or not Adde then to the evidence hereof the example of Marcion Father of the Marcionites in the beginning of his Heresie in Epiphanius who being put out of the Church and denied Penance by his own Father a Bishop of great piety and zeal in Pontus because professing continence he had corrupted a Virgin and afterwards at Rome because of the Rule by which the whole Church subsisteth to make good the acts of all parts thereof within the Power of those parts unlesse voided by superiours fell hereupon to set up his Heresie And truly so rigid a position as that of the Novatians if it be considered aright could very hardly have found any fellows if it had been unheard of in the Church But though the Montanists were rejected at Rome as to the point of receiving Adulterers seeing yet the question remained concerning Apostates so doubtfull as to give Novatianus a party in it what can be more manifest then that they had the pretense of Apostolicall discipline and the Scriptures to set off their Schism with A thing still more evident because that from the relation of that which passed between Cornelius of Rome and Fabius of Antiochia in Eusebibius Eccles Hist VI. 43 44. it appeareth that the Church of Antiochia remained for a time in suspense whether to acknowledge Cornelius or Novatianus for the right Bishop Whereupon the Bishops of the East writing to Julius of Rome from a Councell held at Antiochia in Sozomenus Eccles Hist III. 8. doe reckon it as a motive to perswade him not to interpose in the cause of Athanasius deposed by the Councell held there afore that they also had formerly done the like in the case of Novatianus And by this eminent instance we learn how much the Unity of the Church is to be preferred before Discipline The name of Saints and the like in the Writings of the Apostles is convertible with that of Christians being given to all the members of those Churches to which they addresse their Epistles Though it be manifest by those very Epistles that as our Saviour had foretold so were those Churches nets that held both good and bad fish floors that had both corn and chaffe What property of speech is there then to make good the language of the Apostles Surely if the Church be a visible Society of men subsisting not by the nature of the persons but by institution and appointment of voluntary acts capable to qualifie them upon whom they passe then upon the constitution of members of the same there must needs accrue unto them qualities and denominations correspondent to the acts upon which they arise Now the profession of Christianity is not the proper and essentiall act of it because it may be feigned and fruitlesse but it is a sign to ground a reasonable presumption upon that the person is such as he is thereupon presumed to be But being admitted to the Communion of the Church upon this presumption he purchases thereupon a Right to be taken for such as those are to be so long as he continueth in the same Now if the discipline of Christianity could be held up together with the Unity of the Church then must it be understood that the Church is commanded to exact it of all members of the Church upon the same obligation as it is commanded all Christians for their souls health But though it be absolutely necessary to the salvation of Christians to live as Christians yet it is not so necessary for any Christian to procure that another Christian doe it therefore is the care of it commanded the Church or whosoever is to have that care on behalf of the Church so far as it may be usefull to procure the generall good of the Church And surely the effect and benefit of this discipline was invaluable both to those that passed through it and to the confirmation of the Church But when a person of eminence must be made desperate by refusing to readmit him to the Church which perhaps was the case with S. Paul towards the incestuous person at Corinth whom S. Chrysostome and Theodoret take to be a person qualified in that Church as I have shewed in the Apostolicall Form of Divine Service p. 119. and so capable to lead a party after him or when the multitude and equality of offenders takes away the benefit of example and teaches them to pardon themselves by making a Church of themselves otherwise which if S. Augustine had not said it we might have gathered to have been the case after the Persecution of Decius under Cornelius and S. Cyprian without doubt the losse of it is a mischief nothing comparable to that which would follow by dissolving the Unity of the Church And if so near the source of Christianity much were abated what shall we think must be abated when so much water is mingled with the wine of the Gospel by admitting good and bad to the mariage of the Lamb Neither is it my meaning to determine precisely how far the Church may or must abate yet thus much I will inferre for a consequence that as always there was a difference between the right of Communion with the Visible Church and invisible Communion with the Church of the first-born which is the right and title to life everlasting as between the profession and performance of Christianity so seeing the condition of Communion with the Church is still released and inlarged more and more to retain Unity in corrupt Christianity the condition of communion with God remaining always the same the Visible communion of the Church is always a presumption of invisible Christianity because always necessary to it though not sufficient alone and therefore though not always a reasonable presumption because so much difference between the condition of visible and invisible yet always a legall presumption effectually qualifying more Christians as to the Society of the
Church And this is the reason of that which I say here p. that the estate of the Church is then most happy and most pure when this legall presumption is most reasonable It is not onely true which I say p. 30. that the Power of binding and loosing which the Priests and Doctors exercised under the Law that is of declaring this or that to be bound or loose that is unlawfull or lawfull by the Precepts of the Law cannot be that which our Lord meaneth Mat. XVIII 18. when he saith Whatsoever ye binde on earth but also that the reason holdeth not under the Gospel to ground a generall Commission correspondent to the Power in force under the Law upon which it may be thought to be said Whatsoever ye binde For the reason of this Power under the Synagogue was the matter of positive Precepts not commanded because it was good but good because it was commanded Which where it was not determined by the Law was to be supplied by the Power of the Consistory established Deut. XVII 8 12. the determination whereof being declared by authority derived from thence made any thing lawfull or unlawfull before God by virtue of the generall Precept by which the authority subsisted For which reason the Consistory is to offer sacrifice for the transgression of private persons as you see here p. 158. so often as they are led into transgression by the Consistory deciding amisse And this reason holds under the Gospel in regard of matters of Positive right concerning the Society of the Church not determined by any divine Precept For if the Church have determined the matter of them further then it is determined by Divine right then is that bound or unlawfull which is so determined unlesse the authority by which it is determined declare that the determination is not to take place This is the effect of that Legislative Power which I challenge for the Church Chap. IV. from p. 170. and concerns onely those positive Precepts which tend to maintain the Society of the Church in Unity But in those things which concern the substance of Christianity because they are commanded as good the obligation being more ancient then the Constitution of the Church as grounded upon the nature of the subject and the eternall will of God this power hath no place And therefore cannot be understood to be signified by the terms of binding and loosing as borrowed from the language of the Talmud Doctors But whereas in the Synagogue it was things or cases under the Gospel it is persons that are said to be bound or loose For of every case questionable in point of Christianity there is no infallible authority given to assure all Christians that following it they shall always please God in all actions But as it is possible to judge of the state of all persons toward God upon supposition of their profession so there is authority founded in the Church of binding and loosing that is of remitting and retaining sins by admitting to or excluding from the Church In fine this interpretation is inconsequent to the words that went afore Let him be unto thee as a Heathen and a Publicane if we take them in Erastus his sense that thereby our Lord gives leave to sue such before the Secular Powers of the Romanes as would not stand to the sentence of their own Consistories For this plainly concerns matter of Interesse not matter of Office seeing it would be very impertinent so to understand our Lord as to command them to be sued in the Gentiles Courts that would not stand to the sentence of the Jews Consistories in matters of Conscience But if we understand binding and loosing according to this opinion to be declaring this or that to be lawfull or unlawfull before God then doth it not concern matter of Interesse but matter of Conscience or Office Besides this interpretation is impertinent to that which follows Again I say unto you if two of you agree upon earth about any thing to ask it it shall be done for them by my Father which is in heaven For where two or three are assembled in my Name there am I in the midst of them Whereas the interpretation which here is advanced of binding and loosing the persons of them that are admitted to or excluded from the Communion of the Church agreeth with that which went afore Let him be to thee as a Heathen and a Publican and no lesse with that which followeth tending to declare the means of loosing such as should be so bound to wit the Prayers of the Church as hath been declared As for the conceit of Erastus that this Precept of our Lord should concern onely the Jews that lived under the Romanes and not be intended for an Order to be observed in all ages of the Church it is so unreasonable that I finde no cause to spend words in destroying it Onely be it remembred that it is contrary to the Order instituted by our Lord and his Apostles that the differences of Christians should be caried out of the Church to be pleaded and heard in the Courts of the Gentiles according to that which was practised afore in the Synagogue as hath been said So that this sense of Erastus as you see by that which follows it is contrary to the practise of the Church under the Apostles As for the reason touched p. 43. that the practise of the Church before Constantine is the best evidence to shew the proper Power and Right of it it is here opportune to resume the distinction made afore and upon it to frame a generall argument against both Which shall be this Either there was a Society of the Church by right as we know there was in point of fact before Constantine or there is no such thing to be grounded upon the Scriptures in point of right but was onely an usurpation and imposture of the Primitive Clergy of the Church This later assertion is that which hath been refuted by the premises proving first a privilege or a precept of communicating in the service of God given to the community of Christians secondly a condition under which they were admitted to communicate and to be Christians and continued in the same estate But if there were a Society of the Church before Constantine constituted by Divine right then could not the same have been dissolved but by the same Power that constituted it from the beginning neither can it be known to be dissolved but by the same evidence by which it appears to have been constituted that is unlesse it can be made to appear by the Scriptures that God ordained it to subsist onely till the Romane Empire and other States and Kingdomes received Christianity then to be dissolved into the Power of those States being become Christian which I am confident no man will undertake to shew out of the Scriptures If it be said that it subsisted till Constantine not by Divine right but according to Divine right
one in the greatest City and the most populous for number of Christians that is mentioned in all the Scriptures Though no common reason can question but there were more Congregations considering that it cannot be thought that all the Christians contained in the greatest and most Christian of all those Cities could assemble together at once for the common service of God Upon these premises it is necessary to inferre that the Apostles Order was that which we see was the Rule of their practice that the severall Bodies of those that should be converted to Christianity within severall Cities and the Territories thereof should constitute severall Churches to be governed by the severall Presbyteries thereof constituted and regulated as shall be declared in the consequences Which being established it will not be difficult to inferre that the Power of the Keys and the consequences thereof are deposited in the said Churches that is trusted with them that are endowed with the Power of Governing those Churches To which if you adde this that the Churches of particular Cities were to depend upon the Churches of Mother Cities upon which particular Cities depended for the civile Government you have a reason and Rule of the whole frame of Church Government designed by the Apostles as generall as could be given to a Society that was to consist of severall Nations and Soveraignties without limits but not more generall then the Originall constitution of the whole Church derived from their design will evidence to be agreeable to those impressions and marks of it which are here produced out of the Scriptures This Position is liable to an Objection from those which the ancient Canons of the Greekish Councels call Chorepiscopi which we may translate Country Bishops because the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 properly signifieth the Country in opposition to or in difference from the City For if Churches constituted in Cities have their severall Presbyteries the Heads whereof being Bishops are by consequent Governors in chief of their respective Churches how are Bishops constituted in the Country that is in any of the chief Villages under any City For by this means either we have a Church in a Village or a Bishop without a Church and so the practise of the Church not to be reconciled with that which I make the design of the Apostles if either be true The answer to this in generall must come from that which you have here afterwards p. 62. that the Rule is as generally expressed in these terms as any Rule generall to those cases that may fall out so divers For the generall intent and reason of it is to preserve the Unity of the Whole Church by the subordination and dependence of the parts thereof to and from other parts and so the Whole If some particular provision prove necessary some time and place to attain this end it is not to be thought that the generall Rule holds not therefore For the particular here in hand one thing I conceive may be questionable in point of Fact and matter of Historicall Truth concerning these Country Bishops which the Canons quoted p. 146. speak of For in the beginning of the XI Canon of Antiochia it is said that they received 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Ordination of Bishops In the end of it it is provided that they be Ordained by the Bishop of the City to whom they are subject The first clause seems to intimate that they have the same Ordination with other Bishops which is by the Synod of the Province or those that represent the same Besides that we finde by the subscriptions of the Councels that they were called to Councels as if they received their trust immediately from the Synods of their Provinces By the second clause it seems they receive their authority immediately from the Bishop of the Province whereupon they are called Vicarii Episcoporum the Bishops Deputies as you see in the place afore named What my judgement is in this point you may have seen before p. 146. neither do I see cause to repent me of it For howsoever they were Ordained and from whomsoever they received their trust it is manifest by the Canons of Ancyra and Laodicea there quoted that they received it upon such terms as to be subordinate to the Bishop of the City which otherwise Bishops were not but immediately to the Synod of the Province and the Bishop of the Mother City Neither is it contrary to the ground of that generall Rule which I maintain that it should be within the Power of the Church contained in any Province that is to say the Synod of the same to Ordain that in regard some Village under some City of that Province grew considerable for the extent of it and the multitude of Christian souls contained in it therefore it should have a Bishop beside the Bishop of the City Alway provided that the dependence of Churches might be preserved wherein the Unity of the whole consisted But it is manifest that this dependence might be maintained two severall ways supposing a Bishop to be constituted in a Village First Ordaining him to be subordinate to the Bishop of the City Which is the case of those whom we speak of whose Power is tied up as you have seen by the said Canons of Ancyra and Laodicea But should they be left free from all dependence on the City Bishop then were they absolute Bishops and their Churches though in Villages and therefore lesse yet for their respective Power and right the same with other Churches constituted in Cities Which seems to be the case of the Churches of Africk where Bishops were so plentifull that every good Village must needs be the Seat of an Episcopall Church Neither doth this destroy the Rule which I maintain that Cities and Churches were originally convertible but argues that Villages in some Countries had that privilege which in others was proper to Cities To that which is said p. 53. of the difference between Prophesies and between Apostles and Prophets I adde this consideration That the Apostles of our Lord were necessarily Prophets because of the promise of the Holy Ghost to lead them into all truth to remember them of our Lords Doctrine and to make them understand the Scriptures all which are contained in the thing signified by this word Prophesie though the originall thereof import onely foretelling things to come as it is manifest by S. Paul 1 Cor. XIV But all Prophets are not necessarily Apostles that is sent by God to declare their Commission to his people or to charge them with those things which God revealed to themselves I grant that the Prophets under the Old Testament were such by reason of that Law by which God appointeth them to be obeyed and therefore giveth a Rule how to discern between true and false Prophets Deut. XVIII 18. And hereupon it is that their writings are the Word of God and that Prophesie is said to have failed after those whose Writings we
have Not that we are bound to disbeleeve Josephus when he relates of John Hyrcanus the Prince of the Nation and others that they foresaw things to come to say nothing of Simeon and Anna the Blessed Virgin and Zachary because the light which they had may be taken for the dawning of that day that was to come under the Gospel but because they were not sent with means to make evidence of their Commission and so to charge the people of God As at the present though God may grant revelations yet no obligation upon the Church follows because no Commission can be made to appear Whereby we may measure the difference between the Prophets of the Old Testament and the Prophets which we reade of in the Churches of the New Those having Commissions to the people in Covenant with God containing his pleasure in the interpretation limitation dispensation of the same were above Gods positive Law in as much as God by them might abate it some time and some where as by Elias in Mount Carmell These we doe not finde that they had to doe beyond the Churches whereof they were to evidence the presence of God in the Church by his Graces to inform them of things to come to instruct their own Churches but always supposing the constitution of the Church and the Laws whereby they were setled by the Apostles And therefore if the Prophets of the Old Testament were under the Consistory to be judged by them as I have said here p. 104. much more were the Prophets of the New Testament subject to the Apostles when as by like reason they were to be subject to the Government of their own Churches seeing there is no appearance of any privilege for them against the common obligation of obedience to the same Whereupon the Montanists who made a Schism upon presumption of some instructions they had from their supposed Prophets were not onely abused in point of Fact to take them for Prophets which were not but were guilty of Schism in point of Right because God had given no Power to those whom he granted those Graces to under the Gospel against the ordinary government of his Church I will adde here to that which you finde of the State of the Jews at Alexandria p. 56. a remarkable passage of an Edict of Claudius in favour of the Jews recorded by Josephus Antiqu. XIX 4. where having said that he had understood that the Romane Governours from the taking in of Alexandria had always maintained the Jews in their Rights he adds 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And that when the Prince of the Jews Nation was dead Augustus did not forbid them to make Princes but would have all subject to him continuing in their own customes and not constrained to transgresse the Religion of their Fathers Which if we compare with the words of Philo adversus Flaccum where he affirms that the Consistory of the Jews at Alexandria was established or confirmed by Augustus it will appear that the Jews had the same Government in Aegypt as in Palestine and Babylonia to wit by a Head of their Nation and a Consistory Zorobabel was their Prince when they first returned from the Captivity but as the little Chronicle of the Jews relates he afterwards left Judaea and returned into Babylonia where his posterity continued Heads of the Captives as they are called by Josephus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by the Jews 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for many generations In Judaea setting aside Nehemias and the Governours which he mentions V. 14 15. because it seems they had not their Power from the Nation and the Right which they had within themselves by being privileged to live by their own Laws but by an immediate Commission from the Soveraign as the name 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 there signifies being Babylonish as we see by Dan. III. 2. and as the Commission of Nehemiah imports by which he is enabled to make warre against his fellow Governours which afterwards was usuall under the Persian Empire Josephus affirms that the Government was in the hands of the High Priests from the return out of Captivity till the time of Mattathias his sons Antiqu. XI 4. and that after him till the destruction of Jerusalem it was no otherwise the Scriptures of the New Testament are sufficient to inform us As for the Consistories under these Heads of the Nation we finde much mention of them in the Jews Writings at Babylonia And at Jerusalem from the Constitution thereof under Esdras by the Commission granted him from the Soveraign Ez. VII 26. we have the continuance and subsistence of them in the Gospels and Josephus Now about the time of Herod the Great the little Chronicle of the Jews relates that Hillel of the posterity of Zorobabel and David came down from Babylonia to Jerusalem and became of such esteem in the knowledge of the Law that by the Talmud Doctors he and his posterity in succession are reckoned for Heads of the Consistory Which how it can stand with the relation of the Scriptures before the destruction of the Temple I doe not so well understand But when afterwards by the kindnesse of King Agrippa to his Nation and his love to the Law as it seems most probable they took up their residence at Tiberias it seems there is not much doubt to be made that from thenceforth those of this stock continued Patriarchs and the Consistory there under them till the times of Epiphanius and the Emperours whose Laws you have in both Codes Tit. de Judaeis Coelicolis and in fine so long as their privileges lasted in Palestine In like manner therefore in Aegypt where Philo in the same Discourse reckons that there lived a million of Jews in his time and at Alexandria we have from the same Philo intelligence of the Consistory from Josephus of the Head of the Nation whom he cals 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and is without doubt the same that the Emperour Adriane in his Epistle to Servianus recorded by Vopiscus in the life of Saturninus cals Patriarcha The words of Philo 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 are these For having apprehended XXXVIII even all that were found in their Houses of our Senate which our Saviour and Benefactour Augustus chose to take charge of the Jews affairs by his instructions to Magnus Maximus when he went to govern the Country the second time Here are XXXVIII of LXX named whereof the Consistory consisted Here is the very Order of Augustus named which Claudius his Edict alleged by Josephus pointeth at In fine he that is called in Claudius his Edict 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in Hadrianus Epistle Patriarcha is here called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 whose Power seems to have been correspondent to that of the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in Babylonia of the High Priest at Jerusalem and of the Patriarch at Tiberias There is in the Ecclesiasticall Histories a consideration very proper to evidence the reason why Constantinople was afterwards the second
in rank after Rome which is here touched p. 59. And it is that of the power of Eusebius and of Nicomedia the City of his Bishoprick For because during the time of Diocletian Nicomedia was as it were the Seat of the Empire he having made it his main Residence with an intent to have it so continue thereupon saith the History Eusebius growing to great eminence in the Church undertook the support of Arius against Alexander of Alexandria If therefore the Bishop of Nicomedia had attained such authority in the Church by the ambulatory residence of the Empire there since the time of Diocletian well might the preeminence settle at Constantinople when Constantine had fixed the Seat of the Empire there and that by the virtue of the Rule given by the Apostles though the effect thereof come after the act of Constantine To that which I have said from p. 62. of the great difference that is to be found in the execution of the Apostles Rule that Churches should be planted in Cities or in the greatest Residences in severall Counties that is to be added which Sozomenus Eccles Hist VI. 20. hath recorded concerning that Province which he cals Scythia the Romanes Moesia Inferior in which at the time of the Emperour Valens there was but one Bishop of the Mother City Tomi the place of Ovids banishment For this is the same case with that which is related by Eutychius of Aegypt before Demetrius was Bishop of Alexandria that there was no more Bishops in it besides that one the same which Godignus relates of the Abassines that there is to this day but one Bishop in all that Dominion as you have it here p. 64. To all the reasons here produced for the Dependence of Churches adde the consideration of the Unity of the Church how it was commanded by God in point of right and how provided and maintained in point of Fact by the Church For if the Church be a Visible Society commanded to live in Unity then is the Unity thereof commanded to be Visible That is it is commanded that Christians preserve Unity with all Christians not onely in Faith and Love inwardly in the minde but also in the outward Communion of all those Ordinances wherein God hath appointed his Service under the Gospel to consist And this is manifest by the words of S. Paul to the Ephesians exhorting them to continue in Unity because they have one Lord one Faith one Baptism one God and Father of All Eph. IV. 4. For if these motives and reasons were proper to the Church of the Ephesians then might it very well be thought that Christians are obliged thereby onely to live in Unity with those of the same Church But since they are common to all Christians of all Churches never so remote it followeth that the Precept of upholding the Unity of the Church obligeth all Christians visibly to communicate with all Christians By which reason the same may be proved by all or most of those Scriptures which recommend or which onely mention the Unity of the Church But it is most peremptorily proved by that which hath been produced in the first Chapter to shew the condition upon which all men are to be admitted to the Communion of the Church which is the Profession of Christianity For seeing that is one and the same in all parts and Climates of the World as introduced by the same Power and derived from the same Fountain it follows that no Church hath any further to enquire about any mans right of communicating with the Church but whether his Profession be allowed by his own Church and whether that hold Communion with the Whole And truly because it is the same condition which entitles all men to the Communion of the Church all over the world that is to Professe the substance of Christianity therefore all Churches are to procure that there be nothing to hinder this Communion when that condition is performed and every person of those Churches in their severall qualities that nothing else be demanded But when some Churches or some parts of one and the same Church demand for the condition of communicating with others something more then was appointed for the condition of it from the beginning separation and Schism follows the cause whereof is commonly doubtfull because it appears not how farre severall Churches or parts of the same are to yeeld to the acts of others which would conclude the whole if they should yeeld when it appears not how the matter of them agrees with that condition of Communion with the Church that was delivered from the beginning But when both sides charge the blame on the contrary party they shew that they are both agreed that the blame must lie on one side and therefore that the unity of the Church is such as hath been said because Schism in the Church no more then War in civile Society can be just on both sides Now it is very manifest that in the Primitive Church this unity was actuated by intercourse of letters from Church to Church begun first and established by the Apostles themselves whose writings are almost all Epistles For by their Epistles as the matter of Christianity is more and more declared so the intercourse and correspondence of the Church is preserved in as much as it is manifest that their Epistles require nothing of the Churches to which but the same which they require of the Churches from which they write so that there must needs be correspondence between all that acknowledge the Apostles holding correspondence The same course was continued not onely by the Epistles of the Primitive Bishops which are a great part of their writings still remaining but a great deal more by the intercourse of their Formatae or letters of mark which every Christian that travelled into a strange Country taking with him from his own Church found not onely the Communion of the Church open to him wheresoever he came but also that assistance in his affairs which Christians are to expect from the charity of Christians And of this kinde the Epistle to the Romanes may be accounted because of the recommendation of Phoebe XVI 2. as of a Deaconesse in the Church of Cenchreae near Corinth The effect of this course is visible in all the proceedings of the Primitive Church whereof we have some memorable instances here afore related When by the result of a Councell such or such Bishops are removed from their Churches it is ordinarily signified to other Churches by the letters of the Councell with this warning That none of them from thenceforth write to the persons so sentenced nor receive letters from them as Bishops Marcion being put out of his Fathers Church of Pontus is refused to be admitted to Communion at Rome lest the unity of the Church should be dissolved if the act of a Church so far distant should not be made good by that of Rome being an act in the Power of that Church to doe Therefore
upon the doing of the act it was to be signified that it might be known what was to be done The Excommunication of Andronicus is by Synesius his eight and fiftieth Epistle signified to the Churches with this protestation That if any Church admitted him without giving satisfaction to theirs it would thereby cause Schism and dissolve the unity of the Church Infinite more might be produced to this purpose for hereupon it is that all Bishops are many times in the Primitive Records of the Church accounted to have a charge of the whole Church because of their interesse to give advise and thereby to concur in the setling of all affairs of other Churches that might conduce to the quiet or unquietnesse of the Whole Which as it was solemnely done by the Assemblies of Synods so it was every day done by this intercourse which in time of Persecution supplied the use of them to better effect then they were found to produce in time of peace And this seems to me a peremptory argument against the Presbyteries because this intercourse was a matter of daily necessity whereas by the design of the Presbyteries there is no standing Body to which the Church can have recourse for assistance in the ordinary occasions thereof which concern other parts but the Presbyteries of Congregations which themselves condemne as uncapable to deal in such matters when they give them not power to excommunicate Therefore it is of consequence that in the greatest residences of the World those Bodies of Churches should be always standing to which the Church might have daily resort either to receive or communicate advise judgement sentence and whatsoever was to passe for the maintenance of unity in the exercise of Christianity so that what there should be received might by consequence be presumed to be received by all Christians contained under the same not having any pretense to oppose such a consent as they were prejudiced with And thus upon the proof of the institution of Churches in Cities it follows that the Power of the Keys and all the productions and branches of the same as to their respective Bodies in concurrence with other Churches of like Rank and dependence on those of higher is by consequence deposited with the same To conceive aright of the correspondence between the Constitution of the Church and the Synagogue which it is manifest our Lord himself pointed at in choosing XII Apostles and LXX Disciples as it is touched here p. 72. we are to deduce it from the vailing of the Gospel within the Law and the discovering of the New Testament by taking away the vail of the Old By reason whereof the Church is the spirituall Israel as the Synagogue was Israel according to the flesh no otherwise then the Gospel is the Law spiritually understood A thing so manifest by all the passages of the Old Testament produced expounded and applied not onely by the Apostles but by our Lord himself in the New that he shall of necessity doe great wrong to Christianity that shall take in hand to maintain it against Judaism without drawing this ground into consequence Now it is manifest that the People of Israel being made a free People by the act of God bringing them out of Aegypt and entitling them to the Land of Promise upon the Covenant of the Law had Moses not onely for their Prophet and chief Priest for by him Aaron and his Successors are put in possession of the Priesthood and the Tabernacle it self and all the pertinences thereof made and consecrated but also for their King their Lawgiver their Judge and Commander in Chief of their forces under God if not rather God by Moses For after the decease of Moses we see that either God by some extraordinary immediate signification of his will and pleasure stirred up some man to be in his stead for the time or if there were none such then he took upon him to rule their proceedings himself in as much as by answering their demands by Vrim and Thummim he directed them what to doe and what courses to follow in the publick affairs that concerned the State of that People Whereupon when they required Samuel to make them a King he declareth that it was not Samuel but himself whom they had rejected because they had rejected him whom God had immediately given them in his own stead so that by his naturall death the Power returned to God as at the beginning Under Moses the XII Heads of the Tribes Representatives of the XII Patriarchs commanded the Militia of their respective Tribes divided into Thousands Hundreds Fifties and Tens which division by divers passages of the Scriptures appears to have continued to after ages without doubt for no other reason but because the Lot of every Tribe was divided amongst them according to the same And the chief of these divisions are they whom Moses upon Jethroes advise assumed to himself to judge the causes of lesse moment referring the greater to him who over and above that charge was to goe between the people and God in all things which he should please immediately to determine as you may see by the Text of Exodus XIX 16 19 20. This Office it is which he assumed afterwards LXX of the Elders of Israel to assist him in which by the Law so often quoted of Deut. XVII 8 are afterwards made a standing Court resident at the place of the Tabernacle to judge the last result of all causes concerning the Law and to determine all matter of Right not determined by the letter of the same So that by consequence the judgement of inferiour causes arising upon the Laws given by God resorteth unto the inferiour Consistories of severall Cities constituted by the Law of Deut. XVI 18. though perhaps partly in the Hands of those Captains before the Laws were altogether provided or put in force which dependeth much on the possession of the Land of Promise This is the reason that those of the High Consistory are called the Elders of Israel but those of other Consistories barely Elders or the Elders of such or such a City as Deut. XXII 2 3. Let thy Elders goe forth and let the Elders of the next City take Thy Elders that is the Elders of Israel So those of the Great Consistory are ordinarily called in the Gospel as also the Scribes of the People and thy Scribes is used there for those of the High Consistory whereas the bare name of Scribes extended far further to other manner of persons As also the bare name of Rulers and that of Rulers of the People of Israel are to be understood with the like difference Now wherein consists the correspondence between the Order of the Church and this of the Synagogue The King of the Church without doubt is our Lord Christ alone who hath absolute Power over it and because he is in heaven his Militia is also heavenly even Michael and his Angels that fight for the Church against the Devil and
of their lawfull Soveraigns the subject of their Sermons seeing that all parts of Christianity may be throughly taught the people and every person of the people as fully understand how grievous every sin is as if they be stirred to malign and detest their Superiours by being told of their sins How much more when the actions in their whole kinds are not sins but may be involved with such circumstances as make them consistent with Christianity Besides seeing it is not every Preacher that is to regulate the proceedings of the Church in such sins of publick persons as appear to destroy Christianity to run before the publick censure of the Church in declaring what it ought to doe is not the zeal of a Christian but such a scandall as leaves the person that does it liable himself to censure The sin of Will-worship which I acknowledge p. 188. is as far distant from that voluntary service of God under the Gospel which answers to the voluntary Sacrifices of the Law in my meaning as it is in deed For as the Law had voluntary Sacrifices or freewill offerings not commanded by it but to be offered according to it the price whereof consisted in the frank disposition of him that offered the same So can it not be doubted that the Sacrifices of Christians their Prayers and their Alms all the Works of Free bounty and goodnesse together with Fasting and single life with continence and whatsoever else gives men more means and advantages to abound in the same may be offered to God out of our free-will not being under any Law requiring it at our hands Onely the difference is this that whereas the Sacrifices of the Law are things neither good nor bad but as they are tendred to God either in obedience to the Law or according to the same all Sacrifice which we can tender to God under the Gospel must needs consist in the spirituall worship of God Not in the means whereby it is advanced that is more plentifully or cordially performed Now though the spirituall worship of God is always commanded yet seeing it is not commanded to be done and exercised always it is much in the disposition of Christians what times what places what manner what measure what circumstances they will determine to themselves being not always determined by Gods Law for the tendring of the Sacrifice of Christians which being so determined shall be as truly a voluntary Sacrifice or freewill Offering as any under the Law and so much more excellent as the Law is lesse excellent then the Gospel If this may be received to goe under the name of Will-worship I am so far from counting Will-worship a sin that I acknowledge that to be the height of Christianity from whence it proceedeth But I conceive the word is not improperly used to signifie that which the Jews are reproved by our Lord after the Prophet Esay for because they worshipped God according to Doctrines taught by Traditions of men Not because they practised the Law according to the determinations of the Greek Consistory which as I have many ways shewed they had expresse power by the Law to make and therefore our Lord also commands them to obey Mat. XXIII 2. But because they thought there was a great deal of holinesse in practicing the Precepts of the Law precisely as their Elders had determined which setting aside the obedience of Gods Ordinance was nothing in Gods esteem in comparison of that justice and mercy and piety wherein the service of God then as always consisted We cannot but observe that this sin is taxed by the Prophets oftentimes as well in the practice of those precepts which are expressed in the Scripture of Moses his Law as by our Lord and the Prophet Esay in the ptactice of those which were introduced by humane authority Psal XL. 7 L. 8 Es I. 12 Jerem. VII 21 and therefore consisteth not in observing things introduced by men but in tendring to God for the service of God that which was not necessarily joyned with the inward holinesse of the heart which God is to be served with This sin of the Jews I conceive is found correspondently in other professions not onely of Gentiles and Mahumetanes which cannot worship God without it but also of Christians professing true Christianity when they worship not God according to it But not because they acknowledge humane constitutions which by Gods Ordinance cannot be avoided but because they may vainly please themselves in imagining that they please God in observing them without that disposition of the heart which God is to be served with And this sin of the Jews as Eusebius cals 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 so Epiphanius also in some of the ancient Hereticks cals it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which satisfies me that it may be called Wil-worship in English Though whether the former voluntary and frank service of God is not also called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 I dispute not here The reason why the Ceremonies of Divine Service which are here p. 192. proved to have been used under the Apostles cannot continue the same in the Church of all times and places I have briefly expressed p. 325. so that notwithstanding the Ceremonies of the service of God in publick ought to be such as may conduce to the same end for which it may appear those were instituted which were in force under the Apostles That it is a mistake to think that Soveraign Powers are called Gods in the Scripture as is said p. 214. appears further by Exod. XXII 28. Thou shalt not curse Gods neither shalt thou speak evill of the Ruler of thy people For in this place the Prince of the people 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is a name common to Kings Judges and all their Governours in Chief that were of their own Nation whether absolute or under strangers Therefore the Sacrifice enjoyned Levit. IV. 22. belonged to the King when they were under Kings as the Jews agree Therefore it is given the King also Ezek. XII 10. VII 27. XIX 1. And therefore this Law is acknowledged by S. Paul to belong to the High Priest Acts XXIII 5. because as I said afore the High Priests had then the Chief Power within their own People as they had upon the return from Babylonia Wherefore seeing this Precept consists of two parts the second whereof belongs to the King the first must belong to the Judges of their Consistories according to the resolution of the Jews that all and onely Judges made by Imposition of Hands are called Gods in the Scriptures That which is here said p. 228. of the quality of Governour under the King of Persia in which and by which Nehemiah restoreth the Law and swears the people to it is to be compared with that which you finde here since in the 57 page of this Review Whereby it will rather appear that he was Governour of that Province by the like Commission as other Governours of
Provinces were constituted by in the Babylonian and after it in the Persian Empire then by any right belonging to him among his own people such as the posterity of Zorebabel had to be Governours of the Jews that remained in Babylonia when they were privileged to live according to their own Laws by their Soveraign But whether this or that as to the point here in hand both are to the same purpose I must not passe over this place without taking into consideration the reasons upon which and the consequences to which Erastus his opinion seems to be advanced in the late sharp work de Cive where it is determined that the interpretation of the Scriptures for which I may as well say the Power of Giving Laws to the Church seeing the greatest difficulty lies in determining controversies of Faith the constitution of Pastors the Power of binding and loosing belongs to every Christian State to be exercised by the ministery of Pastors of the Church For if this may take place then is all that hath been said to no purpose And truly I must imbrace and applaud one position upon which all this proceeds that the Church to which any Right or Power of acting according to any right is attributed in the Scriptures must needs be a Society that may be assembled and therefore stands obliged to assemble But that hereupon alone it should be inferred and taken for granted that therefore a Christian State and a Christian Church are both the same thing distinguished by two severall causes and considerations when both consist of the same persons I have all the reason in the World to stand astonished For it is not the persons which are supposed here to be the same that any question can be made of neither can the Church and the State be said to be the same thing because they are all the same For we speak not here of the nature of the persons their souls or bodies or any thing that either of both is endowed with but we speak here of the quality of a State or a Church affecting all those persons together upon some voluntary act of God or of themselves or both without making any change in the nature of any person so qualified onely supposing the person whose act it is able to doe the act upon which they are qualified to be a State or a Church and by doing it to oblige or privilege the persons on whom it passes Which kinde of things are oftentimes by Philosophers Divines and Lawyers called to very good purpose Morall things Such are all manner of rights in all manner of Societies whatsoever being nothing else but abilities of doing something which are not in other men not endowed with the same So likewise seeing that all the objects of any faculty naturall or morall any habit of virtue or vice or that which is neither but consists in skill or knowledge or any perfection of nature for which a man is neither good nor bad may be denominated and qualified by the faculties or habits that are exercised upon them by the same reason as colour is said to be seen or as that is said to be right and just which is done according to justice therefore by the same common reason if there be such a thing as Holinesse in the souls of men which disposes them to reverence God by tendring him that service which may expresse it then are the Means and the Circumstances the Times the Places and the Persons by which this reverence is publickly tendred to God capable to be denominated Holy by a morall quality derived from that Holinesse which dwels in the souls of Christians and not onely capably but actually so qualified in point of right supposing that which hath been proved p. 212 that the practice of Gods people evidenced by the Scriptures proves the reverence of the same to be effectuall and necessary for the maintenance of that reverence of God in those acts of his service wherein the Holinesse of Christians consisteth This though it belong not to my present purpose I have set down upon this occasion out of a desire further to declare the nature of that Holinesse for which Times Places and Persons as also all other means which God is served by are said to be Holy and for what reason I call it p. 217. sometimes Morall sometimes Ecclesiasticall Holinesse sometimes also Relative as others many times do call it For seeing it is grounded upon the relation which is between all faculties morall or naturall between all habits of virtue and vice or whatever else and the objects which they are exercised about it is manifest how properly it is called Relative Again seeing it hath been declared that those qualifications and denominations which arise upon some act of God or man having power to oblige either others or themselves are therefore called Morall in opposition to such as make a change in the nature of mens souls and bodies when they become endowed therewith because these Morall qualities accrue without any change in the nature of them to whom they accrue therefore that Holinesse which belongs to things uncapable of that Holinesse which dwels in the souls of Christians is properly called morall Holinesse as grounded upon the Will of God appearing to have appointed the reverence of them to maintain that reverence of him wherein Holinesse consisteth And as for this reason in generall it is called morall Holinesse so it is also called Ecclesiasticall for the same reason expressed in particular as depending upon that Will of God by which Christianity and the Church and the service of God therein subsisteth To return then to my purpose which gave me occasion to declare this here seeing that when the question is made whether the Church and the State consisting of the same persons be the same thing or not there can be no question understood of the nature that is the souls and bodies of the persons which are supposed to be the same but of the Morall beeing of a State whether the same give it the quality of a Church or not 3. And seeing the beeing of such things depends upon the act by which they are constituted we have no more to enquire but this whether the same Act constitute a Church which constitutes a State And then a very little enquiry will serve to shew that though all Churches and all States subsist by the Act both of God and man yet they are severall Acts by which they are States and by which they are Churches So severall that the Church subsists by immediate revelation from God by our Lord and his Apostles which no State doth and whatsoever it is that makes any man a member of any State it is not that which makes him a Christian and so a member of the Church but something else And therefore there is a fault in the reason of the inference propounded which concludes thus that a Church must be that which hath Power to assemble the
persons whereof it consists now the State is it which hath Power to doe that For as it cannot be denied that all States must needs have Power to assemble themselves so it must not be granted that the Church hath not Power to doe the same because it hath been proved here from the beginning that the Church hath Power of assembling not from any State but immediately and originally from God whether for the service of God or for determining whatsoever shall become determinable for the maintenance of Unity among all those that are to communicate in the service of God and the Offices of the same Truly so long as by Circumcision men became both members of a State and of the Communion of Gods service the Church and the State were all one Society as hath often been observed here for the difference between the Law and the Gospel both subsisting by the same Act of God calling them to be his people and to inherit the Land of Promise both upon condition of keeping his Law and by the same act of the people imbracing the same Which holds not in Christianity addressing it self to all Nations and therefore preserving States in the condition which it findes and yet founding a Society of the Church upon the privilege and Charter of assembling for the service of God and the Power which is requisite to preserves the Unity of all that assemble in the condition upon which they communicate in the service of God Which Society as it was visibly distinct from all States for all the time between our Lord and Constantine so is it acknowledged by this author to have subsisted even under the Apostles when as he alleges their Writings to prove those rights which they attribute to the Church to belong to those States which are Christian Which for my part I very much marvell how he could think fit to doe knowing that such acts as the Apostles attribute to the Church are so far from being the acts of the State under which the Church then was that they were prohibited by it so often as the assemblies of Christians were forbidden as you have seen that many times they were By that which hath been said it may appear what reason Ecclesiasticall Writers had to make a difference between the names of the Synagogue and the Church appropriating the former to the Jews and this to the Christians which I for my part so far as custome will give leave desire to observe though for the originall signification I see the name of Ecclesia was at the first most properly attributed to the whole body of Gods people assembled together in the Wildernesse as for example at the giving of the Law For in all the divers significations in which it is used speaking of Christianity there is one and the same consideration of assembling together to be seen though upon severall reasons and to severall purposes from the Synagogue The whole company of those that shall meet and assemble together in the world to come is called sometimes the Church and so is the whole company of the Visible Church upon earth Because though they cannot meet bodily to communicate in the service of God yet they ought to meet with that judgement and disposition of minde that they may both communicate bodily in this world when occasion is and actually meet altogether in the world to come So is the company of Christians contained in either barely one City or the Head City of a Province or Nation called the Church of that City Province or Nation because they so meet severally that any of them may assemble with any because under the same conditions But when one Congregation is called a Church as somtimes it is in the Scriptures it is for the same manner of assembling as the whole people of Israel was assembled in the Wildernesse These things generally premised it will not be difficult to defeat the productions of this assumption in the particulars specified And first according to that which is here determined p. 192. I admit that the Power of interpreting the Scriptures is nothing else but the Power of determining controversies of Faith Though it is not as by consequence to be admitted that those interpretations which come from this Power are as much the Word of God as that which is interpreted by the same or infallible or that we are bound to stand to them as much as to the Scriptures themselves For the Word of God if we will understand it properly is that onely and all that which God giveth in Commission to be declared and enjoyned his people and therefore this author very skilfully observeth that the Word of God in the New Testament is as much as the Gospel which God gave in charge to our Lord Christ and he to his Apostles to be published to the world with a charge from God to imbrace it For so also the Law was the Word of God to Moses and all the Revelations granted the Patriarchs and Prophets were the Word of God to them because by them God declared how he would conduct his People Whereas after the Prophers of the Old Testament though we finde that there were Prophets that spoke by inspiration not onely by Josephus speaking of those times of Gods people whereof there is no mention in the Scriptures but also by that which is said in the New Testament of Simeon and Anna Zachary and the Blessed Virgin and of the Prophets of Churches yet we do not finde it said that the Word of the Lord came to any of them because they received nothing in charge from God to his People Wherefore that which the Church hath received from those persons that spoke not onely by inspiration and revelation but also by Commission from God the evidence of which Commission containeth all the motives to Christianity must not be compared with any thing which it may receive in charge any other way though it be such as may produce an obligation to receive and observe it of a nature answerable to the ground and intent of it which I have declared in the place afore quoted Neither is it to be said that God faileth his Church in any thing due to it upon those promises whereby it subsisteth if he have not provided it of such a Power to be received as infallible unlesse we will say that God hath tied himself to preserve it free from the temptation and triall of Heresies and Schisms which he hath sufficiently declared that he never intended to doe Now that having determined an infallible Power to be requisite for the determining of matters of faith by interpretation of the Scriptures this author in consequence to his assumptions which I have spoke of should challenge it to belong to all Christian States I cannot choose but marvell Seeing that as the Scriptures come by revelation and inspiration from God so whatsoever shall pretend to like authority must needs proceed from the same Which if the Church that is
all that act upon the interesse and title thereof derived from the immediate appointment of God doe by their proceedings disclaim as I have declared much more is it to be presumed that all States notwithstanding the profession of Christianity must needs stand obliged to doe For all States content themselves with the procuring of civile justice for which they are instituted not tying themselves to question whether that which is done be agreeable to the will of God which the Gospel declareth either for the thing that is done which the Gospel many times determineth more strictly then the Laws of civile States doe or for the sincerity of intention which it is to be done with Wherefore if Christianity come to be limited by the determinations of civile Powers then must the truth of the Gospel and the spirituall righteousnesse which it requireth be measured by those reasons which the publick peace and civile justice which preserveth the same may suggest Whereas it hath been declared that it is not the bare profession of Christianity that intitleth any man to any degree of superiority in the Church but that promotion to all degrees of the Clergy doth by the originall institution and appointment thereof presuppose some degree of proficience in the understanding and practice of Christianity rendring them both able and willing to regulate all controversies of Christianity not according to Interesse of State but according to the will of Christ and that spirituall righteousnesse which he advanceth And though it is many times seen that Secular persons are more learned and pious in Christianity then others of the Clergy yet I suppose no man of common sense will presume it so soon of him that is not inabled nor obliged to it by his profession as of him that is And when the question is what is agreeable to the appointment of God in such matters as these I suppose it is no presumption that God hath instituted any thing because it is possible for in morall matters what is absolutely and universally impossible but because it is most conducible to the intent purposed And that to the purposed end of maintaining the truth of the Gospel and that spirituall righteousnesse which it advanceth it is more conducible that those things which concern it be determined by those that are inabled by their profession to spend their time in searching the truth and engaged by the same to advance the spirituall righteousnesse of Christ then barely Christians as Secular Powers As for the reason of this resolution because if the Power of determining matters of Faith might be in any person not subject to the State which the determination must oblige all that are to be obliged by it must become thereby subjects to the Power that maketh it As supposing the temporall Power of the Pope it is insoluble so supposing what hath been premised it ceaseth For seeing nothing prejudiciall to the publick Peace or to the Powers of the World that maintain the same can be within the Power of the Church to determine it cannot be prejudiciall to any Christian State to receive the resolutions and determinations of Ecclesiasticall matters from Councels which may consist of persons not subject to them as well as of such as are For if any thing prejudiciall to the publick peace and lawfull Powers that maintain it be advanced under pretense of Christianity that is if this Power be abused then have the Secular Powers right to God as well as Power to the world to punish such attempts But the Church neither right to God nor Power to the world of resisting them though their Power be ill used to the suppression of Christianity and of that Ecclesiasticall Power that standeth by it because it is to be maintained by suffering the Crosse and not by force As for the Power of binding and loosing it is very well understood to consist as well in judging that which is questioned to be consistent or inconsistent with that Christianity which a man professeth as in remitting or retaining sin that is in allowing or voiding the effect of Baptism which is the Communion of the Church But whereas it is said that the first is the right of the State the second the office of the Pastors of the Church I demand whether these Pastors shall have Power to dissent in case the judgement of the State agree not with their own or not For that this may fall out it is manifest and that any man by his quality in the Church should be bound to proceed in remitting and retaining sin according to his own judgement when as by his subjection to the State he is bound to proceed according to the judgement thereof is an inconvenience as manifest Whereas that a man should be bound by his obligation to the Church to proceed according to his own judgement in Church matters and by his subjection to the State to suffer for it when it is contrary to the judgement thereof is so farre from being an inconvenience that it is the necessary consequence of bearing Christs Crosse The same reason takes place in that which is said that the election of Pastors belongs to the State and the Consecration to Pastors For I have often shewed in the premises that Imposition of Hands is a sign of consent to the constituting of those who receive the same implying a Power of dissenting for the use whereof they are to render account if it be used amisse And truly that Paul and Barnabas should be called Apostles Acts XIV 4 13. in regard of their sending by the Holy Ghost Acts XIII 1 I count it not strange For the extent of the word and the use thereof will bear it Though it is manifest that otherwise Barnabas had Commission from the Church at Jerusalem Acts XI 22. that is from the Apostles Paul not from men nor by men but by Jesus Christ and God the Father that raised him from the dead Gal. I. 1. though acknowledged first as to the Commission which he received with Barnabas Acts XIII 2. by the Church of Antiochia but afterwards in the right of the XII Apostles by themselves at Jerusalem Gal. II. 9. But I count it strange that to prove the Power of the State in choosing Pastors it should be alleged that this dictate of the Holy Ghost by which Paul and Barnabas were set apart to the work for which they were designed Acts XIII 2. was to be acknowledged for the dictate of the Holy Ghost by the Church of Antiochia I have shewed that under the Old Testament the Consistory were to judge of Prophets and to obey them being received which power was sufficiently abused among them I doe beleeve also that there was means given the Church to be resolved in the same that the precept of the Apostle 1 Cor. XII 3. 1 John IV. 1 tendeth to that effect that the grace of discerning Spirits 1 Cor. XII 9. was to such a purpose I remember the words of S. Ambrose upon
the beginning of Saint Luke speaking of the Old Testament Erat autem populi gratia discernere spiritus ut sciret quos in Prophetarum numerum referre deberet quos tanquam bonus nummularius reprobare Now saith he it was a grace that the people had to discern spirits so as to know whom to reckon among the Prophets whom like a good Banker to refuse And I have found in a written copy containing expositions of divers Greek words of the Old and New Testament this Glosse 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is discerning of Spirits spoken of 1 Cor. XII 9. is the distinguishing between those that prophesied truly and falsly And this I beleeve to be S. Pauls meaning because of the correspondence of that which S. Ambrose relateth of the Synagogue I must therefore needs beleeve that the Church was provided by God of means to be resolved who spoke by the Holy Ghost who onely pretended so to doe But that Christian States should have Power to elect Pastors because Christian Churches were able to judge whom the Holy Ghost had elected whom not is a consequence which I understand not For as it was then one thing to elect another to discern whom the Holy Ghost had elected so a Christian State is now far another thing then the Church of Antiochia was at that time Neither is it any thing available to this purpose which this author laboureth to prove that the Soveraign Power together with the Power of interpreting the Word of God were both in the High Priests of the Jews and afterwards in the Kings of Gods people after that they were established For by the particulars here declared from p. 225. it will appear that it was no otherwise in the Kings of Gods people then it is now in Christian Princes and States excepting that the Law was given to one People the Gospel sent to all Nations to wit as for the Power of inforcing Gods Law in the way of Fact Whereas the Power of determining the Law of God in the way of Right was as much estated upon the Consistories of that People by Gods Laws as the Power of giving Rules to the Church is now upon the Synods of the same Neither is the People of Israel a Priestly Kingdome as Moses cals them Exod. XIX 6. because the Priests were to be Kings of them For the Originall imports a Kingdome of Priests which Onkelus translates Kings and Priests as also the New Testament Apoc. I. 6. V. 10. Which if it signifie that all the Israelites should be both Kings and Priests then certainly it inforceth not that their High Priests should be their Kings But that they should be Kings because redeemed from the servitude of strangers to be a people Lords of themselves and Priests because redeemed to spend their time in sacrificing and feasting upon their sacrifices which is the estate under the figure whereof God promiseth unto them that which he meant to his Church and they still expect under their Messias Es LXI 6. though they sacrificed not in person but by their Priests appointed in their stead by Imposition of the Elders hands Num. VIII 10. As for the charge of Josuah to goe in and out at the word of Eleazar Num. XXVII 21. it is expresly declared there to be said in regard of the Oracle of God by Vrim and Thummim which the High Priest was to declare as you see by Deut. XXXIII 8. and Josuah to consult in all his undertakings For this is one of the principall reasons why the government of that people before they had Kings was as Josephus cals it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is the Empire of God because he by his Oracles of Vrim and Thummim prescribed how they were to proceed in their publick affairs Another reason being this because he stirred them up Judges when he pleased which being of his immediate appointment are so far acknowledged by him that when they were weary of Samuel and desired a King God declareth that it was not Samuel but himself whom they refused And therefore it is not to be said that of Right the High Priests ought to have had the Power though de facto the Judges had it during their time For if it be said that the Israelites cast off God Jud. II. 10. because they would not be subject to the High Priest but imbraced the Judges it could not be understood how they should refuse God by refusing Samuel that was one of the Judges Therefore the Soveraign Power was of right in the Judges for which it is said Jud. XVII 7. as also XVIII 1. XIX 1. XXI 25. that there was no King in Israel speaking of the time before the Judges when Josephus and all the circumstance shews these things fell out though they were not always obeyed Jud. II. 17. because as Prophets they laboured to recall the people from their Idolatries That which is here said of the Mariage of Booz and Ruth p. 241. seems to be confirmed by the opinion of Epiphanius that our Lord was invited to the Mariage at Cana in Galilee that as a Prophet he might blesse the Mariage For what is this but the same that the Church always practised afterwards in Blessing Mariages to signifie that they were approved to be made according to the Law of God For which reason also the custome of celebrating Mariages with the Sacrament of the Eucharist was established that the Power of the Keys from which the Communion of the Eucharist proceeds might declare thereby an approbation of that which was done CHAP. V. SEeing it is here declared p. 255. that whosoever thinks himself authorized by his Religion to unsettle the publick peace or to maintain his Religion by force his civile obedience being dispensed with by the same is thereby an enemy to the State and liable to temporall punishment according to the degree of that which he doth it may be thought requisite here to resolve two cases that may be put in this point The one whether the enemies of the Religion in force may become liable to punishment for blasphemies and slanders upon the Religion of the State The other to what temporall punishment men may become liable by exercising their Religion not being expresly permitted by the State to be exercised To the first my answer is resolutely affirmative For seeing that Christianity enjoyneth us to seek the good of all that are enemies to it it is not imaginable that it should oblige any Christian to defame or blaspheme any contrary Religion seeing that must needs redound to the disgrace of them that professe it most of all if they be the publick Powers that maintain it all irreverence of whom upon what cause soever must needs tend to weaken the arm of Government and thereby to unsettle the publick peace And therefore you see what testimony the Apostles have from a stranger Acts XIX 37. You have brought these men that are neither Church robbers nor
will seek no other argument but Tertullian though it were possible to finde more For he in his Book De Velandis Virginibus proveth that the Virgins were not exempted from wearing the like because at Corinth whither S. Paul directed this charge they were not And this the property of the Greek seemeth to argue when the Apostle calleth it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 1 Cor. XI 4 7. which differs something from 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 this signifying that which is onely upon the head and so was the Vaile and therefore the woman is said 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 v. 10. the other that which is so upon the head that it comes down from the head as to the purpose before the face Neither doe I see any reason why we may not understand the Apostle when he says that the women ought to have power on their head because of the Angels to have respect unto the Legend reported in the Book of Enoch which we see was read in the Church in the Apostles time by the II Epistle of S. Peter and that of S. Jude of those Angels that are reported there to have been seduced by the beauty of women out of Gen. VI. 2. Not as if the Apostle did suppose that report to be true or did intend to give credit to the Book but that by alluding to a passage commonly known he may very well be thought to intimate that a like inconvenience to it not disputing whether true or not for the present might fall out in the Church For so when he saith that the Fathers drunk of the rock that followed them in the Wildernesse 1 Cor. X. 4. it is not I suppose his intent to affirm the truth of that which the Jews still tell and therefore without doubt did tell before S. Pauls time that the water followed the Fathers over mountains and valleys in their journey to the Land of Promise but that the Fathers drank of that water which the Jews say followed them For of the Jews themselves the learned Buxtorfe in his Preface to the Great Lexicon is of opinion that they doe not relate such fables as stories but as Parables and I conceive I have met with some things in their writings that seem to make it probable So again when S. Peter and S. Iude cite the Book of Enoch it is not their intent to credit it or tie us to beleeve that which they cite out of it but to argue thus from it that if those that reade it cannot but applaud the decorum which it keeps making the good Angels so reverent that they would not curse or blaspheme Satan what are we to think of those whom they speak of that blasphemed either Secular Powers as it is commonly understood or which perhaps is more probable the good Angels And thus by the way you see how to answer the reason for which some stick to receive these Epistles for Canonicall Scripture though it hold also in divers of S. Pauls in which are many sayings alleged out of Apocryphall Scriptures And thus the Apostles expression will be most artificially modest supposing his meaning to be onely this that women ought to be vailed because of that which we reade in the Book of Enoch to have befallen the Angels Now in those Countries where the vail was not used at the receiving of Christianity it seems this precept of S. Paul was not held to oblige As for men covering or uncovering their head in Preaching it can be nothing to S. Pauls meaning because uncovering the head in sign of reverence was a custome unknown in his time Thus you see these particulars propounded in the form of precepts notwithstanding do not oblige the Church Those that scruple the superiority of Bishops as a step to bring in Antichrist are not onely to consider that which is said here p. 291. that the Socinians have the same scruple of the substance of Christianity but also that which some of the Sects of this time give out as you see in the beginning of this Review that the making of the Church a Society or Community was the beginning of Antichrist which I have shewed was the act of our Lord and his Apostles And also that which Erastus objecteth unto the Presbyteries that by the means of Excommunication the Papacy which is the Power of Antichrist was advanced Whereby he hath requited all their aspersions upon Episcopacy and shewed all the world that the imputation of Antichrist is a saddle for all Horses that it is argumentum galeatum a reason that will serve to discredit any adversary if it may have passe-port without shewing by the Scriptures wherein the being of Antichrist consisteth And herewith my purpose was to rest contented for the present thinking this enough for this particular cause to answer the objection of Antichrist with But I have considered since that the whole credit of the ancient Church and the benefit that might redound to the resolution of all differences and difficulties from the acknowledgement thereof but in the nature of Historicall truth is utterly lost to us by the means of this prejudice In particular that by the Papers which passed between his late Majesty of happy memory and Master Alexander Hinderson lately published it appears that the whole issue of that dispute ended in it Upon these considerations therefore I have thought fit further to answer by denying the truth of this interpretation of S. Paul and the Apocalypse and to justifie this deniall by propounding so probable a meaning of those Prophesies to another effect as all those that apply them to the Papacy doe shew they could never attain to because they are fain to Prophesie themselves for the meaning of part of them which they confesse is not fulfilled And this I doe here the rather because hereby I shall declare the utmost of that argument which I have used for the Interesse of Secular Powers in Church matters grounded upon the Prophesies of the calling of the Gentiles whereby God declaring his will of bringing States to Christianity declareth by consequence that he calleth them to the same Interesse in matters of Religion which we know was exercised by the Kings of his ancient people And hereof the Apocalypse will make full proof being nothing else but the complement of all the Prophesies of the Old Testament concerning the calling of the Gentiles and therefore fulfilled in the subduing of the Romane Empire to Christianity and the vengeance taken upon the persecutors thereof Which though it cannot be fully proved without expounding all and every part of it to this effect yet because by the main hinges upon which it turns reasonable men may perceive that it cannot nor ever will be expounded to any other purpose I will stop here a while to shew this that men for the future may advise before they act upon supposition of such uncertain conceits I begin with the opening of the first Seale Apoc. VI. 1 2.