and did bestow his entertainment upon them all as considered together but by reason of the great multitude of them it was impossible that they should all be feasted together in the same Room and therefore for more convenient participation of the Kings bounty it was necessary to divide themselves into particular companies and to associate as many as conveniently could in order to that end So it is in the Church Christ in donation of priviledges equally respects the whole Church but because men cannot all meet together to participate of these priviledges a more particular distribution was necessary for that end But a clearer example of this kind we have yet in Scripture which is Mark 6. 39. in our Saviours feeding the multitude with five loaves and two fishes where we see our Saviours primary intention was to feed the whole multitude but for their more convenient partaking of this food our Saviour commands them to sit down 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 according to the Hebraism of ingeminating the words to note the distribution of them and therefore the Vulg. Lat. renders it secundum contubernia that is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as Camerarius expounds it according to so many companies and divisions as might conveniently sit together as at a Table Where we plainly see this distribution was only accidentall as to Christs primary intention of feeding the multitude but was only necessary for their own conveniency Thus the case is evident as to the Church of God it is our necessity and conveniency which makes severall Congregations of the Catholike visible Church and not Gods primary intention when he bestowed such priviledges upon the Church that it should be understood of particular Congregations If then particular Congregations be only accidentall for our conveniency it evidently follows that the primary notion of a Church doth not belong to these nor that these are the first subject of Government which belongs to a Church as such and not as crumbled into particular Congregations although the actual exercise of Government be most visible and discernable there Because the joyning together for participation of Gospel-Ordinances must be in some particular company or other associated together for that end Where ever then we find the notion of a Church particular there must be government in that Church and why a National Society incorporated into one civil Government joyning in the profession of Christianity and having a right thereby to participate of Gospel-Ordinances in the convenient distributions of them in particular congregations should not be called a Church I confesse I can see no reason The main thing objected against it is that a Church implyes an actual joyning together for participation of all Gospel-Ordinances but as this as I said before is only a begging the Question so I say now that actual communion with any particular Congregation is not absolutely necessary to a member of a Church for supposing one baptized at Sea where no setled Congregation is nor any more Society then that which Aristotle calls 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 yet such a one is thereby a member of the Church of God though not of any Congregation so likewise a Church then may consist of such as have a right to Ordinances without the inserting their actual participation of them in fixed Congregations A particular Church then I would describe thus That it is A society of men joyning together in the visible profession of the true Faith having a right to and enjoying among them the Ordinances of the Gospel That a whole Nation professing Christianity in which the Ordinances of the Gospel are duly administred in particular Congregations is such a Society is plain and evident A clear instance of such a National constitution of a Church under the Gospel we have in the Prophesie of the Conversion of Egypt and Assyria in Gospel-times Isaiah 19. 19 21 24 25. We have Egypts professing the true Faith and enjoying Gospel Ordinances vers 19. 21. which according to the Prophetical stile are set down under the representation of such things as were then in use among the Jewes by an Altar in the midst of the Land ver 19. The Altar noting the true worship of God and being in the midst of the Land the universal owning of this worship by all the people of the land God owns them for a Church v. 25. Whom the Lord of hosts shall bless saying Blessed be Egypt my people The very name whereby Israel was called while it was a Church 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Hosea 2. 1. And when God unchurched them it was under this name 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Ye are not my people As much then as Israel was a Church when God owned it for his People so should Egypt be upon their conversion to the Faith of Christ which was done upon Marks preaching at Alexandria not long after the death of Christ. This then we have now briefly cleared that a Nation joyning in profession of Christianity is a true Church of God whence it evidently follows that there must be a Form of Ecclesiastical Government over a Nation as a Church as well as of Civil Government over it as a Society governed by the same Lawes Therefore some make this necessary to a Nationall Church National Union in one Ecclesiasticall body in the same Community of Ecclesiasticall Government For every Society must have its Government belonging to it as such a Society and the same Reason that makes Government necessary in any particular Congregation will make it necessary for all the particular Congregations joyning together in one visible society as a particular National Church For the unity and peace of that Church ought much more to be looked after then of any one particular Congregation in as much as the Peace of all the particular combinations of men for participation of Ordinances doth depend upon and is comprehended in the Peace of the whole But though I say from hence that some form of publike Government by the subordination of particular Assemblies to the Government of the whole body of them is necessary yet I am far from asserting the necessity of any one form of that Government much more from saying that no Nationall Church can subsist without one Nationall Officer as the High-Priest under the Law or one Nationall place of Worship as the Temple was The want of considering of which viz that Nationall Churches may subsist without that Form of them under the Jewes is doubtless the great Ground of Mens quarrelling against them but with what Reason let Men impartially judge This then we agree that some from of Government is necessary in every particular Church and so that Government in the Church of Divine and unalterable Right and that not onely of particular Congregations but of all Societies which may be called Churches whether Provinciall or Nationall CHAP. II. The second Concession is That Church-government formally considered must be administred by Officers of Divine appointment To that end
Presbyterii honore provexit What more plain and evident then that here a Presbyter ordained a Presbyter which we now here read was pronounced null by Theophilus then Bishop of Alexandria or any others that at time It is a known instance that in the ordination of Pelagius first Bishop of Rome there were only two Bishops concurred and one Presbyter whereas according to the fourth Canon of the Nicene Council three Bishops are absolutely required for Ordinaâ—ion 〈…〉 Bishop either â—hen Pelagius was no Canonical Bishop and so the point of succession thereby fails in the Church of Rome or else a Presbyter hath the same intrinsecal power of Ordination which a Bishop hath but it is onely restrained by Ecclesiastical Lawes In the time of Eustathius Bishop of Antioch which was done A. D. 328 as Iacobus Gothâ—â—redus proves till the time of the ordination of Paulinus A. D. 362. which was for thirty four years space when the Church was governed by Paulinus and his Colleagues withdrawing from the publick Assemblies it will be hard to say by whom the Ordinations were performed all this while unless by Paulinus and his Collegues In the year 452. it appears by Leo in his Epistle to Rusticus Narbonensis that some Presbyters took upon them to ordain as Bishops about which he was consulted by Rusticus what was to be done in that Case with those so ordained Leo his resolution of that Case is observable Siqui autem Clerici ab ist is pseudo-Episcopis in iis Ecclesiis ordinati sunt quae ad prâ—prios Episcopos pertinebant ordinatio â—orum cum consensn judicio praesidentium facta est potest rata haberi ita ut in ipsis Ecclesiis perseverent Those Clergy men who were ordained by such as took upon them the Office of Bishops in Churches belonging to proper Bishops if the Ordination were performed by the consent of the Bishops it may be looked on as valid and those Presbyters remain in their Office in the Church So that by the consent ex post facto of the true Bishops those Presbyters thus ordained were looked on as Lawful Presbyteâ—s which could not be unless their ordainers had an intrinsecal power of Ordination which was onely restrained by the Laws of the Church for if they have no power of Ordination it is impossible they should confer any thing by their Oâ—dâ—nation If to this it be answered that the validity of their Ordination did depend upon the consent of the Bishops and that Presbyters may ordain if delegated thereto by Bishops as Paulinus might ordain on that account at Antioch It is easily answered that this very power of doing it by delegation doth imply an intrinsecal power in themselves of doing it For iâ— Presbyters be forbidden ordaining others by Scriptures then they can neither do it in their own persons nor by delegation from others Fâ—â— Qâ—od alicui suo nomine â—on lices nec 〈…〉 Anâ—â—â—â—â— Rule oâ— Cyprian must hold true Non aliquid câ—i â—â—â—â— largiri potest humana indulgentia ubi intercâ—dit legâ—â— tribuit Divina â—râ—scriptio There can be no dispensing with Divine Lawes which must be if that may be delegated to other persons which was required of men in the Office wherein they are And if Presbyters have power of conferring nothing by their Ordination how can an after-consent of Bishops make that Act of theirs valid for conserring Right and Power by it It appears then that this Power was restrained by the Lawes of the Church for preserving Uâ—ity in its self but yet so that in case of necessity what was done by Presbyters was not looked on as invalid But against this the case of Ischyras ordained as it is said a Presbyter by Collutbus and pronounced null by the Council of Alexandria is commonly pleaded But there is no great difficulty in answering it For first the pronouncing such an Ordination null doth not evidence that they looked on the power of Ordination as belonging of Divine right onely to Bishops for we find by many instances that acting in a bare contempt of Ecclesiastical Canons was sufficient to degrade any from being Presbyters Secondly If Ischyras had been ordained by a Bishop there were câ—rcumstances enough to induce the Council to pronounce it null First as done out of the Diocess in which case Ordinations are nulled by Concil Arel cap. 13. Secondly done by open and pronounced Schismaticks Thirdly done sine titulo 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and â—o nulled by the Canons then Thirdly Colluthns did not act as a Presbyter in ordaining but as a Bishop of the Meletian party in Cynus as the Clergy of Mareotis speaking of Ischyras his ordination 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by Collytbus a Presbyter making shew of being a Bishop and is supposed to have been ordained a Bishop by Meletius More concerning this may be seen in Blondel who fully clears all the particulars here mentiâ—â—eâ— So that notwithstanding this Instance nothing appears but that the power of Ordination was restrained only by Ecclesiastical Lawâ— The last thing to prove that the Church did act upon prudence in Church-Government is from the many restraints in other cases made by the Church for restraint of that Liberty which was allowed by Divine Laws He must be a stranger to the ancient Canons and Constitutions of the Church that takes not notice of such restraints made by Canons as in reference to observation of several Rites and Customes in the Churches determined by the Provincial Synods of the several Churches for which purpose their Provincial Synods were still kept up in the Eastern Church as appears by the Testimony of Firmilian in his Epistle to Cyprian Qua ex causa necessariò apud nos fit ut per singulos annos Seniores Praepositi in unum conveniamus ad disponenda ea quae curae nostrae commissa sunt Ut si quae graviora sunt communi consilio dirigantur lapsis quoque fratribus c. medela quaeratur non quasi à nobis remissionem peccatorum consequâ—ntâ—r sed â—t per nos ad intelligentiam delictorum suorum convertantur Domino pleniùs satisfacere cogantur The several orders about the Discipline of the Church were detâ—rmined in these Synods as to which he that would find a command in Scripture for their ordeâ—s about the Catechumeni and Lapsi will take pains to no purpose the Church ordering things it self for the better Regulating the several Churches they were placed over A demonstrative Argument that these things came not from Divine command is from the great diversiâ—y of these customes in several places of which besides Socrates Sozomen largely speaks and may easily be gathered from the History of the several Churches When the Church began to enjoy ease and liberty and thereby had opportunity of enjoying greater conveniency for Councils we find what was detrrmined by those Councils were entred into a Codex Canonum for that purpose which
onely to poor and private Men. Nature and Religion agree in this that neither of them had a hand in this Heraldry of secundum sub supra all this comes from composition and agreement of men among themselves wherefore this abuse of Christianity to make it Lacquey to Ambition is a vice for which I have no extraordinary name of Ignominy and an ordinary I will not give it lest you should take so transcendent a vice to be but trivial Thus that grave and wise person whose words savour of a more then ordinary tincture of a true Spirit of Christianity that scorns to make Religion a footstool to pride and ambition We see plainly he makes all difference between Church-Officers to arise from consent of parties and not from any Divine Law To the same purpose Master Chillingworth propounds this Question among many others to his adversary Whether any one kind of these external Forms and Orders and Government be so necessary to the being of a Church but that they may be diverse in divers places and that a good and peaceable Christian may and ought to submit himself to the Government of the place where he lives whosoever he be Which Question according to the tenour of the rest to which it is joyned must as to the former part be resolved in the Negative and as to the latter in the Affirmative Which is the very thing I have been so long in proving of viz. that no one Form of Church-Government is so necessary to the being of a Church but that a good and peaceable Christian may and ought to conform himself to the Government of that place where he lives So much I suppose may suffice to shew that the Opinion which I have asserted is no stranger in our own Nation no not among those who have been professed Defenders of the Ecclesiastical Government of this Church Having thus far acquainted our selves with the state and customes of our own Countrey we may be allowed the liberty of visiting Forraign Churches to see how far they concur with us in the matter in question The first person whose judgement we shall produce asserting the mutability of the Form of Church-Government is that great light of the German Church Chemnitius whom Brightman had so high an opinion of as to make him to be one of the Angels in the Churches of the Revelation He discoursing about the Sacrament of Order as the Papists call it layes down these following Hypotheses as certain truth◠1. Non esse Dei verbo mandatum qui vel quot tales gradus seu ordines esse debeant 2. Non fuisse tempore Apostolorum in omnibus Ecclesiis semper cosdem totidem gradus seu ordines id quod ex Epistolis Pauli ad diversas Ecclesias scriptis manifestè colligitur 3. Non fuit tempore Apostolorum talis distributio graduum illorum quin saepius unus idem omnia illa officia quae ad ministerium pertinent sustineret Liberae igitur fuerunt Apostolorum tempore tales ordinationes habitâ ratione ordinis decori aedificationis c. Illud Apostolorum exemplum Primitiva Ecclesia eadem ratione simili libertate imitata est Gradus enim officior um ministerii distributi fuerunt non autem eadem plane ratione sicut in Corinthiaca vel Ephesina Ecclesia sed pro ratione circumstantiarum cujusque Ecclesiae unde colligitur quae fuerit in distributione illorum graduum libertas The main thing he asserts is the Curches freedom and liberty as to the orders and degrees of those who superintend the affairs of the Church which he builds on a threefold foundation 1. That the Word of God no where commands what or how many degrees and Orders of Ministers there shall be 2. That in the Apostles times there was not the like number in all Churches as is evivident from Pauls Epistles 3. That in the Apostles times in some places one person did manage the several Offices belonging to a Church Which three Propositions of this Learned Divine are the very basis and foundation of all our foregoing Discourse wherein we have endeavoured to prove these several things at large The same Learned person hath a set Discourse to shew how by degrees the Offices in the Church did rise not from any set or standing Law but for the convenient managery of the Churches Affairs and concludes his Discourse thus Et haec prima graduum seu ordinum origo in Ecclesia Apostolica ostendit quae causa quae ratio quis usus finis esse debeat hujusmodi seu graduum seu ordinum ut scilicet pro ratione coetus Ecclesiastici singula Officia quae ad ministerium pertinent commodius rectius diligentius ordine cum aliqua gravitate ad aedificationem obeantur The summ is It appears by the practice of the Apostolical Church that the state condition and necessity of every particular Church ought to be the Standard and measure what Offices and Degrees of persons ought to be in it As to the uncertain number of Officers in the Churches in Apostolical times we have a full and express Testimony of the Famous Centuriatours of Magdeburge Quot verò in qualibet Ecclesia personae Ministerio functae sint non est in Flistoriis annotatum nec usquam est praeceptum ut aeque multi in singulis essent sed prout paucitas aut multitudo coetus postulavit ita pauciores aut plures administerium Ecclesiae sunt adhibiti We see by them there is no other certain rule laid down in Scripture what number of persons shall act in the governing every Church onely general prudence according to the Churches necessity was the ground of determining the number then and must be so still The next person whose judgement is fully on our side is a person both of Learning and Moderation and an earnest restorer of Discipline as well as Doctrine in the Church I mean Hieron Zanchy who in several places hath expressed his judgement to the purpose we are now upon The fullest place is in his Confession of Faith penned by him in the LXX year of his Age and if ever a man speaks his mind it must be certainly when he professeth his judgement in a solemn manner by way of his last Will and Testament to the world that when the Soul is going into another world he may leave his mind behind him Thus doth Zanch in that Confession in which he declares this to be his judgement as to the form of Church-Government That in the Apostles times there were but two orders under them viz. of Pastors and Teachers but presently subjoyns these words Interea tamen non improbamus Patres quod juxta variam tum verbi dispensandi tum regendae Ecclesiae rationem varios quoqu◠ordines ministrorum multiplicarint quando id iis liberum fuit sicut nobis quando constat id ab illis factum honestis de causis
sufficient for Communion with a Church which are sufficient for eternal salvation And certainly those things are sufficient for that which are laid down as the necessary duties of Christianity by our Lord and Saviour in his Word What ground can there be why Christians should not stand upon the same terms now which they did in the time of Christ and his Apostles Was not Religion sufficiently guarded and fenced in them Was there ever more true and cordial Reverence in the Worship of God What Charter hath Christ given the Church to bind men up to more then himself hath done or to exclude those from her Society who may be admitted into Heaven Will Christ ever thank men at the great day for keeping such out from Communion with his Church whom he will vouchsafe not onely Crowns of Glory to but it may be aureolae too if there be any such things there The grand Commission the Apostles were sent out with was onely to teach what Christ had commanded them Not the least intimation of any Power given them to impose or require any thing beyond what himself had spoken to them or they were directed to by the immediate guidance of the Spirit of God It is not Whether the things commanded and required be lawfull or no It is not Whether indifferencies may be determined or no It is not How far Christians are bound to submit to a restraint of their Christian liberty which I now inquire after of those things in the Treatise its self but Whether they do consult for the Churches peace and unity who suspend it upon such things How far either the example of our Saviour or his Apostles doth warrant such rigorous impositions We never read the Apostles making Lawes but of things supposed necessary When the Councel of Apostles met at Ierusalem for deciding a Case that disturbed the Churches peace we see they would lay no other burden 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 besides these necessary things Acts 15. 29. It was not enough with them that the things would be necessary when they had required them but they looked on an antecedent necessity either absolute or for the present state which was the onely ground of their imposing those commands upon the Gentile-Christians There were after this great diversities of practice and varieties of Observations among Christians but the Holy Ghost never thought those things fit to be made matters of Lawes to which all parties should conform All that the Apostles required as to these was mutuall forbearance and condescension towards each other in them The Apostles valued not indifferencies at all and those things it is evident they accounted such which whether men did them or not was not of concernment to Salvation And what reason is there why men should be so strictly tied up to such things which they may do or let alone and yet be very good Christians still Without all Controversie the main in-let of all the Distractions Confusions and Divisions of the Christian World hath been by adding other conditions of Church-Communion then Christ hath done Had the Church of Rome never taken upon her to add to the Rule of Faith nor imposed Idolatrous and superstitious practises all the injury she had done her self had been to have avoyded that fearful Schisme which she hath caused throughout the Christian World Would there ever be the less peace and unity in a Church if a diversity were allowed as to practices supposed indifferent yea there would be so much more as there was a mutual forbearance and condiscension as to such things The Unity of the Church is an Unity of love and affection and not a bare uniformity of practice or opinion This latter is extreamly desireable in a Church but as long as there are several ranks and sizes of men in it very hardly attainable because of the different perswasions of mens minds as to the lawfulness of the things required and it is no commendation for a Christian to have only the civility of Procrustes to commensurate all other men to the bed of his own humour and opinion There is nothing the Primitive Church deserves greater imitation by us in then in that admirable temper moderation and condescension which was used in it towards all the members of it It was never thought worth the while to make any standing Laws for Rites and Customs that had no other Original but Tradition much less to suspend men her his communion for not observing them 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as Sozomen tells us They judged it and that very justly a foolish and frivolous thing for those that agree in the weighty matters of Religion to separate from one anothers communion for the sake of some petty Customs and Observations 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 For Churches agreeing in the same Faith often differ in their Rites and Customes And that not only in different Churches but in different places belonging to the same Church for as he tells us many Cities and Villages in Egypt not onely differed from the Customes of the Mother-Church of Alexandria but from all other Churches besides in their publick Assemblies on the Evenings of the Sabbath and receiving the Eucharist after dinner This admirable temper in the Primitive Church might be largely cleared from that liberty they allowed freely to dissenters from them in matters of practice and opinion as might be cleared from Cyprian Austine Ierome and others but that would exceed the bounds of a Preface The first who brake this Order in the Church were the Arrians Donatists and Circumcellians while the true Church was still known by his pristine Moderation and sweetness of deportment towards all its members The same we hope may remain as the most infallible evidence of the conformity of our Church of England to the Primitive not so much in using the same rites that were in use then as in not imposing them but leaving men to be won by the observing the true decency and order of Churches whereby those who act upon a true Principle of Christian ingenuity may be sooner drawn to a complyance in all lawfull things then by force and rigorous impositions which make men suspect the weight of the thing it self when such force is used to make it enter In the mean time what cause have we to rejoyce that Almighty God hath been pleased to restore us a Prince of that excellent Prudence and Moderation who hath so lately given assurance to the World of his great indulgence towards all that have any pretence from Conscience to differ with their Brethren The onely thing then seeming to retard our peace is the Controversie about Church-Government an unhappy Controversie to us in England if ever there were any in the World And the more unhappy in that our contentions about it have been so great and yet so few of the multitudes engaged in it that have truly understood the matter they have so eagerly contended about For the state of the controversie as it concerns
second is that the persons imployed in the Service of God should have respect answerable to their imployment which appears from their Relation to God as his Servants from the persons imployed in this work before positive Laws Masters of Families the first Priests The Priesthood of the first-born before the Law discussed The Arguments for it answered The Conjunction of Civil and Sacred Authothority largely shewed among Egyptians Grecians Romans and others The ground of Separation of them afterwards from Plutarch and others p. 85 CHAP. V. THE third thing dictated by the Law of Nature is the solemnity of all things to be performed in this Society which lyes in the gravity of all Rites and Ceremonies in the composed temper of mind Gods Worship rational His Spirit destroyes not the use of Reason The Enthusiastick spirit discovered The circumstantiating of fit times and place for Worship The seventh day on what account so much spoken of by Heathens The Romans Holy dayes Cessation of labour upon them The solemnity of Ceremonies used 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 silence in devotions Exclusion of unfit persons Solemnity of Discipline Excommunication among the Iewes by the sound of a Trumpet among Christians by a Bell. p. 93 CHAP. VI. THE fourth thing dictated by the Law of Nature that there must be a way to end controversies arising which tend to break the peace of the Society The nature of Schisme considered The Churches Power as to Opinions explained When separation from a Church may be lawful Not till communion becomes sin Which is when corruptions are required as conditions of Communion Not lawful to erect new Churches upon supposition of corruption in a Church The ratio of a fundamental article explained it implyes both necessity and sufficiency in order to salvation Liberty of judgement and authority distinguished The latter must be parted with in religious Societies as to private persons What way the Light of nature directs to for ending Controversies First in an equality of power that the less number yield to the greater on what Law of Nature that is founded Secondly In a subordination of power that there must be a liberty of Appeals Appeals defined Independency of particular Congregations considered Elective Synods The Case paralleld between Civill and Church-Government Where Appeals finally lodge The power of calling Synods and confirming their Acts in the Magistrate p. 104. CHAP. VII THE fifth thing dictated by the Law of Nature That all that are admitted into this Society must consent to be governed by the Lawes and Rules of it Civil Societies founded upon mutual Consent express in their first entrance implicite in others born under Societies actually formed Consent as to a Church necessary the manner of Consent determined by Christ by Baptism and Profession Implicite consent supposed in all Baptized explicite declared by challenging the Priviledges and observing the Duties of the Covenant Explicite by express owning the Gospel when adult very useful for recovering the credit of Christia nity The Discipline of the primitive Church cleared from Origen Iustin Martyr Pliny Tertullian The necessary reâ—â—â—â—â—â—es of Church membership whether Positive signs of Grace nothing required by the Gospel beyand reality of profession Exâ—â—â—â—â—tâ— Coâ—â—â—â—â—â— how far necessary not the formal Constitution of a Church proved by severâ—â— arguments p. 132. CHAP. VIII THE last thing dictated by the Law of Nature is that every offender against the Lawes of this Society is bound to give an account of his actions to the Governours of it and submit to the censures inflicted upon him by them The original of penalties in Societies The nature of them according to the nature and ends of Societies The penalty of the Church no civil mulct because its Lawes and ends are different from civil Societies The practice of the Dâ—uâ—ds and Câ—rceâ—ae in e 〈…〉 n. Among the Iewes whether a meer civil or sacr 〈…〉 y. The latter proved by six Arguments Cherem Col Bo what Objections answered The original of the mistake shewed The first part concluded p. 141 PART II. CHAP. I. THE other ground of divine Right considered viz. Gods positive Lawes which imply a certain knowledge of Gods intention to bind men perpetuaâ—ly As to which the arguments drawn from Tradition and the practice of the Church in after ages proved invalid by several arguments In order to a right stating the Question some Concessions laid down First That there must be some form of Government in the Church is of divine right The notion of a Church explained whether it belongs only to particular Congregations which are manifested not to be of Gods primary intention but for our necessity Evidence for National Churches under the Gospel A National Church-Government necessary p. 150 CHAP. II. THE second Concession is That Church Government must be administred by officers of Divine appointment To that end the continuance of a Gospel Ministry fully cleared from all those arguments by which positive Laws are proved immutable The reason of its appointment continues the dream of a â—aeculum Spiritus sancti discussed first broached by the Mendicant Friers upon the rising of the Waldenses now embraced by Enthusiasts It s occasion and unreasonableness shewed Gods declaring the perpetuity of a Gospel Ministry Matth. 28. 20. explained A Novel interpretation largely refuted The world to come What A Ministry necessary for the Churches continuance Ephes. 4 12. explained and vindicated p. 158 CHAP. III. THE Question fully stated Not what Form of Government comes the nearest to the Primitive practice but whether any be absolutely determined Several things propounded for resolving the Question What the Form of Church-Government was under the Law How far Christians are bound to observe that Neither the necessity of a superiour Order of Church-Officers nor the unlawfulness can be proved from thence p. 170 CHAP. IV. WHether Christ hath determined the Form of Government by any positive Laws Arguments of the necessity why Christ must determine it largely answered as First Christs faithfulness compared with Moses answered and retorted and thence proved that Christ did not institute any Form of Government in the Church because he gave no such Law for it as Moses did And we have nothing but general Rules which are appliable to several Forms of Government The Office of Timothy and Titus What it proves in order to this question the lawfulness of Episcopacy shewed thence but not the necessity A particular form how far necessary as Christ was Governour of his Church the Similitudes the Church is set out by prove not the thing in question Nor the difference between civil and Church-Government nor Christ setting Officers in his Church nor the inconvenience of the Churches power in appointing new Officers Every Minister hath a power respecting the Church in common which the Church may determine and fix the bounds of Episcopacy thence proved lawful The argument from the Scriptures perfection answered p. 175 CHAP. V. WHether any of Christs actions have determined the Form of
Scripture its self as to places for as far as we can find sacrificing in high places that is such as were of mens own appointment was lawful till the Temple was built by Solomon as appears by the several examples of Gedeon Samuel David and others Indeed after the place was setled by Gods own Law it became wholly sinfull but if so before we should not have read of Gods accepting sacrifices in such places as he did Gedeons nor of the Prophets doing it as Samuel and David did It is a disputable case about Sacrifices Whether the offering of them came only from natural light or from some express command the latter seems far more probable to me because I cannot see how naturall light should any wise dictate that God would accept of the blood of other creatures as a token of mans obedience to himself And Rivet gives this very good reason why the destruction of any thing in sacrifice cannot belong to the Law of Nature because it is only acceptable as a sign and token of obedience and not simply as an act of obedience and this sign signifying ex instituto for mans destroying the life of a beast can never naturally signifie mans obedience to God and therefore it must have some positive Law for those which signifie only by institution and not naturally cannot be referred to a dictate of the Law of Nature To which purpose it is further observable that God doth so often in Scripâ—ure slight the offering of Sacrifices in respect of any inherent vertue or goodnesse in the action its self or acceptablenesse to God upon the account of the thing done In which sense God saith He that killeth a bullock is as if he slew a man and he that Sacrificeth a sheep as if he cut off a dogs neck c. For what is there more in the one then in the other but only Gods appointment which makes one acceptable and not the other So that it is no wayes probable that God would have accepted Abels sacrifice rather then Cains had there been no command for their sacrificing For as to meer natural light Cains Sacrifice seems more agreeable to that then Abels Cains being an Eucharistical offering without hurt to other creatures but Abels was cruentum Sacrificium a Sacrifice of blood But the chief ground of Abels acceptance was his offering in faith as the Apostle to the Hebrews tells us Now saith is a higher principle then natural light and must suppose divine Revelation and so a divine Command as the Principle and ground of his action Moses his silence in reference to a Command is no argument there was none it not being his design to write at large all the particular precepts of the Orall Law but to deduce the Genealogy of the Patriarchs down from Adam and the Creation But supposing a Command given from God determining modes and circumstances of such â—hings of which the substance depends on a natural Law men are as well bound to the observation of them after their revelation as the other before The one being a Testimony of their obedience to God as clear and full as the other yes and so much the clearer evidence of obedience in that there could be no argument for the performing of those things but a divine Command And even in doing things intrinsecally good the ground of purely religious obedience is because God commands men to do those things more then that they are good in themselves Doing a thing because most suitable to nature speaking morality but doing because God commands it speaks true Religion and the obedience of Faith For as the formal reason of the act of Faith is a divine Testimony discovered to our understandings so the formal principle of an act of spiritual obedience is a divine Command inclining the will and awing it to performance So far then as divine Law determines things we are bound to observe them from the dictates of the natural Law The fourth Hypothesis In things which are determined both by the Law of Nature and divine positive Laws as to the substance and morality of them but not determined as to all circumstances belonging to them it is in the power of Lawful authority in the Church of God to determine them so far as they judge them tend to the promoting the performance of them in due manner So that not only matters wholly left at liberty as to the substance of them are subject to humane Laws and Constitutions but even things commanded in the divine Law in reference to the manner of performance if undetermined by the same Law which enforce the duty Thus the setting apart some time for Gods Worship is a dictate of the natural Law that the first day of the week be that time is determin'd under the Gospel but in what places at what hours in what order decency and solemnity this Worship shall be then performed are circumstances not determined in Scripture but only by general Rules as to these then so they be done in conformity to those Rules they are subject to humane positive determinations But this is not an hypothesis in the Age we live in to be taken for granted without proving it some denying the Magistrate any power at all in matters of Religion others granting a defensive protective power of that Religion which is professed according to the Laws of Christ but denying any determining power in the Magistrate concerning things left undetermin'd by the Scripture This Hypothesis then hath landed me into a Field of Controversie wherein I shall not so much strive to make my way through any opposite party as endeavour to beget a right understanding between the adverse parties in order to a mutual compliance which I shall the rather do because if any Controversie hath been an increaser and fomenter of heart-burnings and divisions among us it hath been about the determination of indifferent things And which seems strange the things men can least bear with one another in are matters of liberty and those things men have divided most upon have been matters of uniformity and wherein they have differed most have been pretended things of Indifferency In order then to laying a foundation for peace and union I shall calmly debate what power the Magistrate hath in matters of Religion and how far that power doth extend in determining things left undetermin'd by the Word For the clear understanding the first of these we shall make our passage open to it by the laying down several necessâ—ry distinctions about it the want of considering which hath been the ground of the great confusion in the handling this Controversie First then we must distinguish between a power respecting Religion in its self and a power concerning Religion as it is the publick owned and professed Religion of a Nation For although the Magistrate hath no proper power over Religion in its self either taking it abstractly for the Rule of Worship or concretely
two We distinguish then between a power declarative of the obligation of former Laws and a power authoritative determining a New Obligation between the office of counselling and advising what is fit to be done and a power determining what shall be done between the Magistrates duty of consulting in order to the doing it and his deriving his authority for the doing it These things premised I say First that the power of declaring the obligation of former Laws and of consulting and advising the Magistrate for setling of New Laws for the Policy of the Church belongs to the Pastors and Governours of the Church of God This belongs to them as they are commanded to teach what Christ hath commanded them but no authority thereby given to make new Laws to bind the Church but rather a tying them up to the commands of Christ already laid down in his Word For a power to bind mens consciences to their determinations lodged in the Officers of the Church must be derived either from a Law of God giving them this right or else only from the consent of parties For any Law of God there is none produced with any probability of reason but that Obey those that are over you in the Lord. But that implies no more then submitting to the Doctrine and Discipline of the Gospel and to those whom Christ hath constituted as Pastors of his Church wherein the Law of Christ doth require obedience to them that is in looking upon them and owning them in their relation to them as Pastors But that gives them no authority to make any new Laws or Constitutions binding mens consciences any more then a Command from the Supreme authority that inferiour Magistrates should be obeyed doth imply any power in them to make new Laws to bind them But thus far I acknowledge a binding power in Ecclesiastical Constitutions though they neither bind by virtue of the matter nor of the authority commanding there being no legislative power lodged in the Church yet in respect of the circumstances and the end they should be obey'd unlesse I judge the thing unlawfull that is commanded rather then manifest open contempt of the Pastors of the Church or being a scandall to others by it But as to the other power arising from mutual compact and consent of Parties I acknowledge a power to bind all included under that compact not by vertue of any Supream binding power in them but from the free consent of the parties submitting which is most agreeable to the Nature of Church-power being not coactive but directive and such was the confederate discipline of the primitive Church before they had any Christian Magistrate And thence the decrees of Councils were call'd Canons and not Laws Secondly Though it be the Magistrates duty to consult with the Pastors of the Church to know what is most agreeable to the Word of God for the settlement of the Church yet the Magistrate doth not derive his authority in commanding things from their sentence decree and judgement but doth by vertue of his own power cause the obligation of men to what is so determin'd by his own enacting what shall be done in the Church The great use of Synods and Assemblies of Pastors of Churches is to be as the Council of the Church unto the King in matters belonging to the Church as the Parliament is for matters of civil concernment And as the King for the settling civil Laws doth take advice of such persons who are most versed in matters of Law so by proportion of reason in matters concerning the Church they are the fittest Council who have been the most versed in matters immediately belonging to the Church In the management of which affairs as much if not more prudence experience judgement moderation is requisite as in the greatest affairs of State For we have found by dolefull experience that if a fire once catch the Church and Aarons Bells ring backward what a Combustion the whole State is suddenly put into and how hardly the Churches Instruments for quenching such fires lachrymae preces Ecclesiae do attain their end The least peg serued up too high in the Church soon causeth a great deal of discord in the State and quickly puts mens spirits out of Tune Whereas many irregularities may happen in the State and men live in quietnesse and peace But if Phaâ—tons dâ—ive the Chariot of the Sun the World wil be soon on fire I mean such in the Church whose brains like the Unicorns run out into the length of the Horn Such who have more fury then zeal and yet more zeal then knowledge or Moderation Persons therefore whose calling â—temper office and experience hath best acquainted them with the State-actions Policy of the primitive Church and the incomparable Prudence and Moderation then Used are fittest to debate consult deliberate and determine about the safest expedients for repairing breaches in a divided broken distracted Church But yet I say when such men thus assembled have gravely and maturely advised and deliberated what is best and fitted to te done the force strength and obligation of the things so determin'd doth depend upon the power and authority of the Civil Magistrate for taking the Church as incorporated into the civill state as Ecclesia est in republicâ non respublica in Ecclesia according to that known speech of Optatus Milivetanus so though the object of these constitutions and the persons determining them and the matter of them be Ecclesiasticall yet the force and ground of the obligation of them is wholly civill So Peter Martyr expresly Nam quod ad potestatem Ecclesiasticam attinet satis est civilis Magistratus is enim â—urare debet ut omnes officium faciant But for the judgement of the reformed Divines about this see Vedelius de Episcopatis Constant. M Officium Magistratus Christiani annexed to Grotius de Imper. c. I therefore proceed to lay down the reason of it First That whereby we are bound either to obedience or penalty upon disobedience is the ground of the obligation but it is upon the account of the Magistrates power that we are either bound to obedience or to submit to penalties upon disobedience For it is upon the account of our general obligation to the Magistrate that we are bound to obey any particular Laws or Constitutions Because it is not the particular determinations made by the civil Magistrate which do immediately bind Conscience but the general Law of Scripture requires it as a duty from us to obey the Magistrate in all things lawfull Obedience to the Magistrate is due immediately from Conscience but obedience to the Laws of the Magistrate comes not directly from Conscience but by vertue of the general obligation And therefore disobedience to the Magistrates Laws is an immediate sin against Conscience because it is against the general obligation but obedience to particular Laws ariseth not immediately from the obligation of Conscience to
are required which mens consciences are unsatisfied in unless others proceed to eject and cast them wholly out of communion on that account in which case their separation is necessary and their Schism unavoidable Secondly therefore I assert that as to things in the judgement of the Primitive and Reformed Churches left undetermined by the Law of God and in matters of meer order and decency and wholly as to the form of Government every one notwithstanding what his private judgement may be of them is bound for the Peace of the Church of God to submit to the determination of the lawful Governours of the Church And this is that power of ending Controversies which I suppose to be lodged in a Church-Society not such a one as whereto every man is bound to conform his private judgement but whereto every private person is bound to submit in Order to the Churches Peace That is that in any Controversies arising in a Church there is such a power supposed that may give such an authoritative Decision of the controversie in which both parties are bound to acquiesce so as to act nothing contrary to that Decision For as it is supposed that in all Contracts and Agreements for mutuall Society men are content to part with their own Liberties for the good of the whole so likewise to part with the Authority of their own judgements and to submit to the Determination of things by the Rulers of the Society constituted by them For there must be a difference made between the Liberty and freedom of a mans own judgment and the Authority of it for supposing men out of all Society every man hath both but Societies being entred and Contracts made though men can never part with the freedom of their Judgements Men not having a Depotical power over their own understandings yet they must part with the Authority of their Judgements i. e. in matters concerning the Government of the Society they must be ruled by Persons in Authority over them Else there can be nothing imagined but confusion and disorder in stead of Peace and Unity in every civil State and Society The case is the same in a religious Society too in which men must be supposed to part with the Authority of their own judgements in matters concerning the Government of the Church and to submit to what is constituted and appointed by those who are intrusted with the care and welfare of it Else it is impossible there should be Unity and Peace in a Church considered as a Society which is as much as to say there neither is nor can be such a Society And that God hath commanded that which is Naturally impossible I mean freedom from divisions and the Unity and Peace of his Church Which will appear from hence because it can never be expected that all men should be exactly of one mind Either then men retaining their private apprehensions are bound to acquiesce in what is publikely determined or there is a necessity of perpetuall confusions in the Church of God For the main inlet of all disturbances and divisions in the Church is from hence that Men consider themselves absolutely and not as Members of a governed Society and so that they may follow their own own private judgements and are bound so to doe in matters belonging to the Government of the Church and not to acquiesce for the Churches Peace in what is established in Order to the ruling of this so constituted Society by lawfull Authority These things premised the way is now fully cleared for the discovering what wayes are prescribed by the light of Nature for ending controversies in the Church which will appear to be these two 1. In societies wherein persons act with an equality of Power for the ending differences arising the less number must alwayes acquiesce in the determination of the greater And therefore it iâ— a generally received Axiom that in all Societies pars major â—ut habet universitatis the greater part hath the power of the whole And it is a standing Rule in the Civil Law Refertur ad universos quod publice fit per majorem partem which is determined by the Lawyers to hold not of the persons in power but of the persons present at the Determination as when Alexander Severus made fourteen of the Viri Consulares to be Curatores urbis joyned with the Praefectis urbis to Determine cases brought before them what was determined by the greater part of those present was looked upon as binding as if the whole number had been there And this Aristotle layes down as one of the fundamental Lawes of a Democratical Government 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 That must be looked on as a just and final decision of a Case debated which the major part determines And therefore rationally infers that in a Democracy the poorer sort and so likewise the worse must alwayes bear the greatest sway because they are the most Which is an unavoydable inconvenience in that form of Government whether in Church or State The same he elsewhere applyes to other forms of Government which have a multitude of Rulers as Aristocracy and Oligarchy That which seems good to the most obtains as a Law amongst all Which Appian thus briefly expresseth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and Dionys. Halicarnasseus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the one speaking of matter of Fact that it doth obtain the other of matter of Law that it should do so It appears then from the Law and light of nature that where ever any multitude acts in an equality of Power the greater part have the power of the whole not from any right which the major part hath as superiour over the less but from the Law of nature which will have every part ordered for the good of the whole which good cannot oft times be obtained without a special determination on one side or other nor that determination have its effect if the Act of the major part may be rescinded by the less So that in every thing requiring special determination this is to be esteemed the most just and final decision which is done by the major part For it would be manifestly unjust for the lesser part to determine the greater and therefore by the Law of nature the greater part hath the right of the whole 2. In a society consisting of many particular Companies or Congregations there must be a subordination of Powers by the Law of nature which grants a right of Appeal to an injured person from the lower and subordinate Power to the higher and superiour Appealing is defined by the Lawyers to be Provocatio iniquae sententiae querelam contineus An address to a higher Power with complaint of wrong and so in geneall it is defined by Ulpian to be ab Inferioris Iudicis sententiâ ad superiorem provocatio but as Hottoman observes appeals may sometimes be made to a co-ordinate power upon complaint of injustice done As one
Praetor Consul Tribune might be appealed to from the sentence of another The originall of Appeals then is that injuries may be redressed and in order to that nature dictates that there ought to be a subordination of Powers one to another lest any injury done through corruption or ignorance of the immediate Judges prove irremediable To which purpose our learned Whitaker saith that Appeals are juris divini naturalis in omni societate admodum necessariae propter multorum judicum vel iniquitatem vel ignorantiam alioqui actum esset de innocente si non liceret ab iniqua sententia appestare So that appeals are founded upon natural right lest men should be injured in any determination of a case by those that have the cognizance of it And in order to a redress of wrongs and ending controversies Nature tells us that Appeals must not be infinite but there must be some Power from whence Appeals must not be made What that should be must be determined in the same manner that it is in Civils not that every Controversie in the Church must be determined by an Oecumenical Council but that it is in the Power of the Supream Magistrate as Supream head in causes Ecclesiastical to limit and fix this Subordination and determine how far it shall go and no further The Determination being in order to the Peace of the Church which Christian Magistrates are bound to look after and see that causes hang not perpetually without Decision And so we find the Christian Emperours constituting to whom Appeals should be made and where they should be fixed as Iustinian and Theodostus did For when the Church is incorporated into the Common-wealth the chief Authority in a Common-wealth as Christian belongs to the same to which it doth as a Common-wealth But of that already It is then against the Law and Light of Nature and the natural right of every man for any particular company of men calling themselves a Church to ingross all Ecclesiastical Power so into their hands that no liberty of Appeals for redress can be made from it Which to speak within compass is a very high usurpation made upon the Civil and Religious rights of Christians because it leaves men under a causeless censure without any authoritative vindication of them from it As for that way of elective Synods substituted in the place of authoritative Power to determine Controversies it is a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which will never be soveraign enough to cure the distemper it is brought for For elective Synods are but like that which the Lawyers call arbitrium boni viri which they distinguish from arbitrium ex compromisso and binds no further then the party concerned doth judge the Sentence equall and just So that this helps us with no way to end controversies in the Church any further then the persons engaged are willing to account that just which shall be judged in their Case Taking then a coercive Power onely for such a one as may authoritatively decide a controvâ—rsie we see what great Reason there is for what the Historian observes Arbitriis ii se debent interponere qui non parenteâ— coercere possunt That all Power of Arbitration should have some juridicall power going along with it to make a finall end of quarrels But that which seems yet more strange to me is this that by those who assert the Independency of particular Congregationâ— it is so hotly pleaded that Christ hath given every particular Congregation a Power over its own Members to determine controversies arising between them but that if one or many of these particular Congregations should erre or break the Rule he hath left no power Authoritatively to decide what should be done in such cases Can we conceive that Christ should provide more for the Cases of particular Persons then of particular Churches And that he should give Authority for Determining one and not the other Is there any more coactive Power given by any to Synods or greater Officers then there is by them to particular Churches which power is onely declarative as to the Rule though Authoritative as to persons where-ever it is lodged Is there not more danger to Gods People by the scandals of Churches then Persons Or did Christs Power of governing his People reach to them onely as particular Congregations Doth not this too strongly savour of the Pars Donati only the Meridies must be rendred a particular Congregationall Church where Christ causeth his Flock to rest But supposing the Scripture not expresly to lay down a Rule for governing many Churches are men outlawed of their natural Rights that supposing a wrong Sentence passed in the Congregation there is no hopes way or means to redress his injury and make his innocency known Doth this look like an Institution of Christ But that which I conceive is the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and the Original of this mistake is that the Churches we read of first Planted in Scripture were onely particular Congregations and therefore there is no proper Church-power beyond them or above them I meddle not with the Antâ—cedent now which is largely discussed by others but the extream weakness of the consequence is that I am here obliged to discover For what a strange shortness of Discourse is it to Argue thus If when there was but one Congregation that Congregation had all Power within its self then when there are more particular congregations it must be so and yet this is the very Foundation of all those Kingdomes of Yvetos as one calls them those sole self-governing congregations When there was but one congregation in a Church it was necessary if it had any Church-power that it must be lodged in that one congregation But when this congregation was multiplyed into many more is it not as necessary for their mutual Government there should be a common power governing them together as a joynt-society Besides the first congregational Church in the New Testament viz. that of Ierusalem could be no particular Organical Church for it had many if not all Universall Officers in it and if they were the fixed Pastours of that Church they could not according to the Principles of those who thus speak Preach to any other congregation but their own by vertue of their Office And so either their Apostolicall Office and Commission must be destroyed if they were Pastors of particular Organical Churches or if their Apostolicall Office be asserted their Pastorship of particular Organicall Churches is destroyed by their own Principles who â—ssert that the Pastor of a Church can do no Pastorall Office out of his own congregation The case is the same as to other Churches planted by the Apostles and govern'd by themselves which two as far as I can find in the New Testament were of an equal extent viz. That all the Churches planted by Apostles were chiefly governed by themselves though they had subordinate officers under them These first Churches then
most eager Disputers of the controversie about Church-Government but how necessary they are to be proved before any form of Government be asserted so necessary that without it there can be no true Church any weak understanding may discern Secondly Supposing that Apostolicall practice be sufficiently attested by the following ages yet unless it be cleared from Scripture that it was Gods intention that the Apostles actions should continually bind the Church there can be nothing inferred that doth concern us in point of Conscience I say that though the matter of fact be evidenced by Posterity yet the obligatory nature of that fact must depend on Scripture and the Apostles intentions must not be built upon mens bare â—urmises nor upon after-practices especially if different from the constitution of things during the Apostles times And here those have somewhat whereon to exercise their understandings who assert an obligation upon men to any form of Government by vertue of an Apostolicall practice which must of necessity suppose a different state of things from what they were when the Apostles first established Governours over Churches As how those who were appointed Governours over particular Congregations by the Apostles come to be by vertue of that Ordination Governours over many Congregations of like nature and extent with that over which they were set And whether if it were the Apostles intention that such Governours should be alwayes in the Church is it not necessary that that intention of theirs be declared by a standing Law that such there must be for here matter of fact and practice can be no evidence when it is supposed to be different from the constitution of Churches afterward But of this more hereafter Thirdly Supposing any form of Government in its self necessary and that necessity not determined by a Law in the Word of God the Scripture is thereby apparently argued to be insufficient for its end for then deficit in necessariis some things are necessary for the Church of God which the Scripture is wholly silent in I say not that every thing about Church-Government must be written in Scripture but supposing any one form necessary it must be there commanded or the Scripture is an imperfect Rule which contains not all things necessary by way of Precept For there can be no other necessity universall but either by way of means to an end or by way of Divine Command I know none will say that any particular form of Government is necessary absolutely by way of means to an end for certainly supposing no obligation from Scripture Government by an equality of power in the Officers of the Church or by superiority of one order above another are indifferent in order to the generall ends of Government and one not more necessary then the other If any one form then be necessary it must be by that of command and if there be a command universally binding whose footsteps cannot be traced in the Word of God how can the Scriptures be a perfect Rule if it fails in determining binding Laws So that we must if we own the Scriptures sufficiency as a binding Rule appeal to that about any thing pleaded as necessary by vertue of any Divine command and if such a Law cannot be met with in Scripture which determines the case in hand one way or other by way of necessary obligation I have ground to look upon that which is thus left undetermined by Gods positive Laws to be a matter of Christian-liberty and that neither part is to be looked upon as necessary for the Church of God as exclusive of the other This I suppose is the case as to particular forms of Government in the Church of God but that I may not only suppose but prove it I now come to the stating of the Question which if ever necessary to be done any where it is in the Controversie of Church-Government the most of mens heats in this matter arising from want of right understanding the thing in question between them In the stating the Question I shall proceed by degrees and shew how far we acknowledge any thing belonging to Government in the Church to be of an unalterable Divine Right First That there must be a form of Government in the Church of God is necessary by vertue not only of that Law of Nature which provides for the preservation of Societies but likewise by vertue of that Divine Law which takes care for the Churches preservation in peace and unity I engage not here in the Controversie Whether a particular Congregation be the first Political Church or no it sufficeth for my purpose that there are other Churches besides particular Congregations I mean not only the Catholick visible Church which is the first not only in order of consideration but nature too as a totum Integrale before the similar parts of it but in respect of all other accidentall modifications of Churches from the severall wayes of their combination together They who define a Church by stated worshipping Congregations do handsomely beg the thing they desire by placing that in their definition of a Church which is the thing in question which is Whether there be no other Church but such particular Congregations Which is as if one should go about to prove that there were no civil Societies but in particular Corporations and to prove it should give such a definition of civill Society that it is A company of men joyned together in a Corporation for the preservation of their Rights and Priviledges under the Governours of such a place It must be first proved that no other company of men can be call'd a civill Society besides a Corporation and so that no other society of men joyning together in the profession of the true Religion can be call'd a Church but such as joyn in particular Congregations To which purpose it is very observable That particular Congregations are not de primariâ intentione divinâ for if the whole world could joyn together in the publike Worship of God no doubt that would be most properly a Church but particular Congregations are only accidental in reference to Gods intention of having a Church because of the impossibility of all mens joyning together for the convenient distribution of Church-priviledges and administration of Gospel-Ordinances For it is evident that the Priviledges and Ordinances do immediately and primarily belong to the Catholick visible Church in which Christ to that end hath set Officers as the Apostle clearly expresseth 1 Corinth 12. 28. for how Apostles should be set as Officers over particular Congregations whose Commission extended to the whole World is I think somewhat hard to understand but for the more convenient participation of Priviledges and Ordinances particular Congregations are necessary This will be best illustrated by Examples We read that Esther 1. 3. King Ahashuerus made a feast for all his Princes and Servants Doubtlesse the King did equally respect them all as a Body in the feasting of them
Evangelists and some Pastours and Teachers but it doth not thence follow that Christ hath determined whether the Power of Apostles and Evangelists should continue in his Church or no as it implied Superiority over the ordinary Pastors of the Churches nor whether the Pastors of the Church should act in an equality in their Governing Churches I grant that all Church-Government must be performed by Officers of Christs appointing but that which I say is not determined in Scripture is the way and manner whereby they shall Govern Churches in common It is yet further argued That if the Form of Church Government be not immutably determined in Scripture then it is in the Churches Power to make new Officers which Christ never made which must be a plain addition to the Lawes of Christ and must argue the Scripture of Imperfection This being one of the main Arguments I have reserved it to the place of the Triarii and shall now examine what strength there lies in it To this therefore I answer First Those Officers are onely said to be new which were never appointed by Christ and are contrary to the first appointments of Christ for the Regulating of his Church such it is granted the Church hath no power to institute but if by new Officers be meant onely such as have a charge over more then one particular congregation by the consent of the Pastours themselves then it is evident such an Office cannot be said to be new For besides the general practice of the Church of God from the first Primitive times which have all consented in the use of such Officers we finde the Foundation of this Power laid by Christ himself in the Power which the Apostles were invested in which was extended over many both Churches and Pastours But if it be said The Apostolical Power being extraordinary must cease with the persons which enjoyed it I answer First What was extraordinary did cease but all the Dispute is what was extraordinary and what not some things were ordinary in them as Preaching Baptizing Ordaining Ruling Churches some things were again extraordinary as immediate mission from Christ the main distinguishing Note of an Apostle a Power of working Miracles to confirm the Truth of what they Preached Now the Question is whether the power which they enjoyed over Presbyters and Churches be to be reckoned in the first or the second number It must therefore be proved to be extraordinary before it can be said to cease with them and that must be done by some Arguments proper to their persons for if the Arguments brought be of a common and moral Nature it will prove the Office to be so too Secondly By ceasing may be meant either ceasing as to its necessity or ceasing as to its lawfulness I say not but that the necessity of the Office as in their persons for the first Preaching and propagating the Gospel did cease with them but that after their death it became unlawful for any particular persons to take the care and charge of Diocesan Churches I deny For to make a thing unlawfull which was before lawfull there must be some expresse prohibition forbidding any further use of such a power which I suppose men will not easily produce in the Word of God I answer therefore Secondly That the extending of any Ministerial power is not the appointing of any New Office because every Minister of the Gospel hath a Relation in actu primo to the whole Church of God the restraint and inlargement of which power is subject to Positive Determinations of prudence and conveniency in actu secundo and therefore if the Church see it fit for some men to have this power enlarged for better government in some and restrained in others that inlargement is the appointing no new Office but the making use of a power already enjoyed for the benefit of the Church of God This being a Foundation tending so fully to clear the lawfulnesse of that Government in the Church which implies a superiority and subordination of the Officers of the Church to one another and the Churches using her prudence in ordering the bounds of her Officers I shall do these two things First Shew that the power of every Minister of the Gospel doth primarily and habitually respect the Church in common Secondly that the Church may in a peculiar manner single out some of its Officers for the due Administration of Ecclesiastical power First that every Minister of the Gospel hath a power respecting the Church in common This I find fully and largely proved by those who assert the equality of the power of Ministers First from Christs bestowing the several Offices of the Church for the use of the whole Church Ephesians 4. 12 13. Christ hath set Apostles c. Pastours and Teachers in his Church now this Church must needs be the catholicke visible Church because indisputably the Apostles Office did relate thereto and consequently so must that of Pastours and Teachers too Again the end of these Offices is the building up the Body of Christ which cannot otherwise be understood then of his whole Church else Christ must have as many Bodies as the Church hath partiticular congregations Which is a new way of Consubstantiation Secondly The Ministerial Office was in being before any particular congregations were gathered For Christ upon his Ascension to Glory gave these Gifts to men and the Apostles were impowered by Christ before his Ascension Either then they were no Church Officers or if they were so they could have no other Correlate but the whole body of the Church of God then lying under the power of Darkness a few persons excepted Thirdly Because the main Designe of appointing a Gospel Ministry was the conversion of Heathens and Infidels and if these be the proper Object of the Ministerial Function then the Office must have reference to the whole Church of Christ else there could be no part of that Office performed towards those who are not yet converted Fourthly Else a Minister can perform no office belonging to him as such beyond the bounds of his particular congregation and so can neither Preach nor Administer the Sacraments to any other but within the Bounds of his own particular place and people Fifthly Because Ministers by Baptizing do admit men into the catholike visible Church else a man must be baptized again every time he removes from one Church to another and none can admit beyond what their office doth extend to therefore it is evident that every particular Pastor of a Church hath a Relation to the whole Church To which purpose our former observation is of great use viz. That particular congregations are not of Gods primary intention but for mens conveniency and so consequently is the fixedness of particular Pastors to their several places for the greater conveniency of the Church every Pastor of a Church then hath a Relation to the whole Church and that which hinders him from the
necessary observation of the Bucharist as proper to Christianity Here we have the Scriptures read by one appointed for that purpose as it was in the Synagogue after which follows the word of Exhortation in use among them by the President of the Assembly answering to the Ruler of the Synagogue after this the publick prayers performed by the same President as among the Jews by the publick Minister of the Synagogue as is already observed out of Maimoni then the solemn acclamation of Amen by the people the undoubted practice of the Synagogue To the same purpose Tertullian who if he had been to set forth the practice of the Synagogue could scarce have made choyce of words more accommodated to that purpose Coimus saith he in coetum congregationem ut ad Deum quasi manu factà precationibus ambiamus or antes Cogimur ad divinarum literarum Commemorationem si quid praesentium temporum qualitas aut praemonere cogit aut recognoscere Certè fidem sanctis vocibus pascimus spem erigimus fiâ—uciam figimus disciplinam praeceptorum nihilominus inculcationibus densamus ibidem etiam exhortationes castigationes censura divina Nam judicatur magno cum pondere ut apud certos de Dei conspectu summumque futuri judicii prae judicium est siquis ita deliquerit ut à communicatione orationis conventûs omnis sancti commercii relegetur Prasident probati quique seniores honorem istum non pretio sed testimonio adepti Where we have the same orders for Prayers reading the Scriptures according to occasions and Sermons made out of them for increase of faith raising hope strengthening confidence We have the Discipline of the Church answering the admonitions and excommunication of the Synagogue and last of all we have the Bench of Elders sitting in these Assemblies and ordering the things belonging to them Thus much for the general correspondency between the publick service of the Church and Synagogue they that would see more particulars may read our Learned Mr. Thorndikes Discourse of the service of God in Religious Assemblies Whose design throughout is to make this out more at large But we must only touch at these things by the way as it were look into the Synagogue and go on our way We therefore proceed from their service to their custom of Ordination which was evidently taken up by the Christians from a correspondency to the Synagogue For which we are first to take notice that the Rulers of the Church under the Gospel do not properly succeed the Priests and Levites under the Law whoâ—e Office was Ceremonial and who were not admitted by any solemn Ordination into their Function but succeeded by birth into their places only the great Sanhedrin did judge of their fitnesse as to birth and body before their entrance upon their Function So the Jewish Doctors tell us 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. e. In the stone Parlour the great Sanhedrin of Israel sat and did there judge the Priests The Priest that was found defective put on mourning garments and so went forth he that was not put on white and went in and ministred with the Priests his Brethren And when no fault was found in the sons of Aaron they observed a festival solemnity for it Three things are observable in this Testimony First That the inquiry that was made concerning the Priests was chiefly concerning the purity of their birth and the freedom of their bodies from those defects which the Law mentions unlesse in the case of grosser and more scandalous sins as Idolatry Murther c. by which they were excluded from the Priestly Office The second is That the great Sanhedrin had this inspection over and examination of the Priests before their admission For what that Learned man Const. L'Empereur there conjectures That there was an Ecclesiastical Sanhedrin which did passe judgement on these things is overthrown by the very words of the Talmudists already cited The last thing observable is The garments which the Priests put on viz. white rayment upon his approbation by the Sanhedrin and soon after they were admitted into the Temple with great joy to which our saviour manifestly alludes Revel 3. 4. 5. Thou hast a few names even in Sardis which have not defiled their garments and they shall walk with me in white for they are worthy He that overcometh the same shall be cloathed in white Rayment But the Priests under the Law were never ordained by imposition of hands as the Elders and Rulers of the Synagogue were and if any of them came to that Office they as well as others had peculiar designation and appointment to it It is then a common mistake to think that the Ministers of the Gospel succeed by way of correspondence and Analogy to the Priests under the Law which mistake hath been the foundation and original of many Errors For when in the Primitive Church the name of Priests came to be attributed to Gospel-Ministers from a fair Complyance as was thought then of the Christians onely to the name used both among Jewes and Gentiles in process of time corruptions increasing in the Church those names that were used by the Christians by way of Analogy and Accommodation brought in the things themselves primarily intended by those names so by the Metaphorical names of Priests and Altars at last came up the sacrifice of the Mass without which they thought the names of Priests and Altar were insignificant This mistake we see run all along through the Writers of the Church assoon as the name Priests was applyed to the Elders of the Church that they derived their succession from the Priests of Aarons order Presbyterorum ordo exordium sumpsit à filiis Aaron Qui enim sacerdotes vocabantur in vâ—teri Testamento hi sunt qui nunc appestantur Presbyteri qui nuncupabantur principes sacerdotum nuno Episcopi nominantur as Isidorus and Ivo tell us So before them both Ierome in his known Epistle to Evagrius Et ut sciamus traditiones Apostolicas sumptas de veteri Testamento Quod Aaron filii ejus atque Levitae in Temple fuerunt hoc sibi Episcopi Presbyteri atque Diaconi vendicent in Ecclesia From which words a leoâ—ned Doctor and strenuous assertor of the jus divinum of Prelacy questions not but to make Ierome either apparently contradictious to himself or else to assert that the superiority of Bishops above Presbyters was by his Confession an Apostolical Tradition For saith he Nihil manifestius dici potuit and S. 2. Quid ad hoc responderi possit aut quo 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 artificio deliniri aut deludi tam diserta affirmatio fateor ego â—e divinando assequi non posse sed è contra exiis quae D. Blondellus quae Walo quae Ludov. Capellus hâ—c in re praestiterunt mihi persuasissimum esse Nihil uspiam contra apertaâ— lucem obtendi posse In a case then so desperate
controversie as to the certainty of the form of Government instituted by Christ because of the Ambiguity of those Records as to the point of succession to the Apostles in that this succession might be only of a different degree in that it is not clear and convincing in all places in that where it is clearest it is meant of a succession of Doctrine and not of persons in that if it were of persons yet Presbyters are said to succeed the Apostles as well as Bishops by the same persons who speak of these By which last thing we have likewise cleared the Second thing propounded to shew the ambiguity of the Testimony of Antiquity which was the promiscuous use of the names of Bishop and Presbyters after the distinction between their office was brought in by the Church For we have made it appear that the names are promiscuously used when that succession which is sometimes attributed to Bishops is at other times given to Presbyters Other instances might be brought of that nature as first that of Clemens Romanus in his excellent Epistâ—e which like the River Alpâ—eus had run under ground for so many centuries of years but hath now in these last times of the world appeared publikely to the view of the World to make it appear how true that is which he saith the Apostles did foresee 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that there would be great contentions about the name of Episcopacy and so there are still and that from his Epistle too For when in one place he tells us that the Apostles ordained their first fruits to be Bishops and Deacons 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of those that should believe afterwards he makes no scruple of calling those Bishops Presbyters in several places 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. and speaking of the present schism at Corinth he saith it was a most shamefull thing and unworthy of Christians 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 To hear the firm and ancient Church of Corinth for the sake of one or two persons to raise a sedition against the Presbyters and afterwards 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Only lâ—t the flock of Christ enjoy its peace with the Presbyters which are set over it But because this is said to be spoken before the time of distinction between Bishops and Presbyters it being supposed that there were no subject Presbyters then although no reason can be assigned why the Apostles should ordain Bishops 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of those that should believe and should not likewise ordain Presbyters for them yet to take away all scruple we shall go farther when subject Presbyters as they are called are acknowledged to be and yet Bishops are call'd Presbyters then too For which we have the clear testimony of the Martyrs of the Gallican Church in their Epistle to Eleutherius Bishop of Rome who call Irenaeus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 when as Blondell observes he had been nine years Bishop of Lyons in the place of Pothinus neither doth Blondels argument lye here that because they call him the Presbyter of the Church therefore he was no Bishop as his Antagonist supposeth but he freely acknowledgeth him to have succeeded Pothinus there in his Bishoprick but because after the difference arose between Bishop and Presbyters yet they called him by the name of Presbyter it seems very improbable that when they were commending one to the Bishop of another Church they should make use of the lowest name of honour then appropriated to subject Presbyters which instead of commending were a great debasing of him if they had looked on a superiour order above those Presbyters as of divine institution and thought there had been so great a distance between a Bishop and subject Presbyters as we are made to believe there was Which is as if the Master of a Colledge in one University should be sent by the Fellows of his Society to the Heads of the other and should in his Commendatory letters to them be styled a Senior Fellow of that House Would not any one that read this imagine that there was no difference between a Senior Fellow and a Master but only a primacy of order that he was the first of the number without any power over the rest This was the case of Irenaeus he is supposed to be Bishop of the Church of Lyons he is sent by the Church of Lyons on a Message to the Bishop of Rome when notwithstanding his being Bishop they call him Presbyter of that Church when there were other Presbyters who were not Bishops what could any one imagine by the reading of it but that the Bishop was nothing else but the Seniour Presbyter or one that had a primacy of order among but no divine Right to a power of jurisdiction over his Fellow Presbyters More instances of this nature are brought there by that learned Author which the Reader may compare with the answers and then let him judge whether the Testimony of Antiquity have not too much ambiguity in it to decide the Controversie clearly on either side But that which seems yet more material is that which we observed in the third place that those who acknowledge the superiority of Bishops over Presbyters do impute it to an act of the Church and not ascribe it to any divine institution The testimony of Ierome to this purpose is well known and hath been produced already that of the counterfeit Ambiose but true Hilary is in every ones mouth upon this Controversie Quia primum Presbyteri Episcopi appellabantur ut recedente uno sequensti succederet sed quia coeperunt sequentes Presbyteri indigni inveniri ad primatus tenendos immutata est ratio prospiciente Coâ—cilio ut non ordo sed meritum crearet Episcopum multorum Sacerdotum judicio constitutum ne indignus temerâ— Usurparet esset multis scandalum Very strange that an opinion so directly contrary to the Divine right of Episcopâ—cy should be published by a Deacon of the Church of Rome and these Commentaries cited by Austin with applause of the person without stigmatizing him for a heretick with Aerius if it had been the opinion of the Church that Bishops in their power over Presbyters did succeed the Apostles by a Divine Right Nothing more clear then that he asserts all the difference between a Bishop and Presbyters to arise from an act of the Church choosing men for their deserts when before they succeeded in order of place It is a mistake of Blundels to attribute this to the Nicene Council doub less he means no more then that Hierom calls Concilium Presbyterorum or which he himself means by judicium Sacerdotum The testimony of Austin hath been already mentioned Secundum honorum vocabula quae jam Ecclesiae usus obtinuit Episcopatus Presbyterio major est Thereby implying it was not so alwayes else to what purpose serves that jam obtinuit and that the original of the difference was from the Church But more express and full is
Isidore himself the Bishop of Sevill in Spain speaking of Presbyters His sicut Episcopis dispensatio mysteriorum Dei commissa est praesunt eni◠Ecclesiis Christi in confectione corporis sanguinis consortes cum Episcopis sunt similiter in doctrina populi in Officio praedicandi sed sola propter auctoritatem summo sacerdoti Clericorum Ordinatio reservata est ne à multis Ecclesiae Disciplina vindicatae concordiam solueret scandala generaret What could be spoken more to our purpose then this is he asserts the identity of power as well as name in both Bishops and Presbyters in governing the Church in celebrating the Eucharist in the Office of preaching to the people onely for the greater Honour of the Bishop and for preventing Schisms in the Church the power of Ordination was reserved to the Bishop by those words propter Auctoritatem he cannot possibly mean the Authority of a Divine Command for that his following words contradict that it was to prevent Schisms and Scandals and after produceth the whole place of Ierome to that purpose Agreeable to this is the judgment of the second Council of Sevil in Spain upon the occasion of the irregular proceeding of some Presbyters ordained by Agapius Bishop of Corduba Their words are these Nam quamvis cum Episcopis plurima illis Ministeriorum communis sit dispensatio quaedam novellis Ecclesiasticis regulis sibi prohibita noverint sicut Presbyterororum Diaconorum Virginum consecratio c. Haec enim omnia illicita esse Presbyteris quia Pontificatus apicem non habent quem solis deberi Episcopis authoritate Canonum praecipitur ut per hoc discretio graduum dignitatis fastigium summi Pontificis demonstretur How much are we beholding to the ingenuity of a Spanish Council that doth so plainly disavow the pretence of any divine right to the Episcopacy by them so strenuously asserted All the right they plead for is from the novellae Ecclesiasticae regula which import quite another thing from Divine institution and he that hath not learnt to distinguish between the authority of the Canons of the Church and that of the Scriptures will hardly ever understand the matter under debate with us and certainly it is another thing to preserve the honour of the different Degrees of the Clergy but especially of the chief among them viz. the Bishop than to observe a thing meerly out of Obedience to the command of Christ and upon the account of Divine institution That which is rejoyned in answer to these Testimonies as far as I can learn is onely this that the Council and Isidore followed Jerome and so all make up but one single Testimony But might it not as well be said that all that are for Episcopacy did follow Ignatius or Epiphanius and so all those did make up but one single Testimony on the other side Ye◠I do as yet despair of finding any one single Testimony in all Antiquity which doth in plain terms assert Episcopacy as it was setled by the practice of the Primitive Church in the ages following the Apostles to be of an unalterable Divine right Some expressions I grant in some of them seem to extoll Episcopacy very high but then it is in Order to the Peace and Unity of the Church and in that Sense they may sometimes be admitted to call it Divine and Apostolical not in regard of its institution but of its end in that it did in their Opinion tend as much to preserve the Unity of the Church as the Apostles Power did over the Churches while they were living If any shall meet with expressions seeming to carry the Fountain of Episcopal power higher let them remember to distinguish between the power it self and the restrained Exercise of that power the former was from the Apostles but common to all Dispensers of the Word the latter was appropriated to some but by an Act of the Church whereby an eminency of power was attributed to one for the safety of the whole And withall let them consider that every Hyperbolical expression of a Father will not bear the weight of an Argument and how common it was to call things Divine which were conceived to be of excellent use or did come from persons in authority in the Church One would think that should meet with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the Acts of the Council of Chalcedon it could be rendred by nothing short of the Scriptures whereas they mean no more by it but onely the Emperours Letters to the Council It hath been already observed how ready they were to call any custome of the Church before their times an Apostolical Tradition And as the Heathens when they had any thing which they knew not whence it came they usually called it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as though it came immediately from Heaven So the Fathers when Traditions were convey'd to them without the names of the Authors they conclude they could have no other Fountain but the Apostles And thus we see many Traditions in several Churches directly contrary to one another were looked on as Apostolical onely from the prevalency of this perswasion that whatever they derived from their Fathers was of that nature But then for that answer to the Council and Isidore and Ierome that they make but one testimony I say that although the words be of the same Sense yet they have the nature of a different testimony upon these accounts First as produced by persons of different condition in the Church some think they are even with Ierome when they tell us what a pique there was between him and Iohn Bishop of Ierusalem and that he might have the better advantage of his adversary when he could not raise himself up to the Honour of Episcopacy he would bring that down to the State of Presbytery but as such entertain too unworthy thoughts of one of those Fathers whom they profess themselves admirers of so this prejudice cannot possibly lie against Isidore or the Council For the first was himself a Bishop of no mean account in the Church of God and the Council was composed of such it could be no biass then of that nature could draw them to this Opinion and no doubt they would have been as forward to maintain their own authority in the Church as the Truth and Conscience would give them leave Therefore on this account one Testimony of a single Bishop much more of a whole Council of them against their acting by Divine Authority in the Church is of more validity then ten for it in as much as it cannot but be in Reason supposed that none will speak any thing against the authority they are in or what may tend in the least to diminish it but such as make more Conscience of the Truth then of their own Credit and Esteem in the World Secondly in that it was done in different ages of the Church Ierome flourished about
Lay-Elders Again we may consider where Timothy now was viz at Ephesus and therefore if such Lay-Elders anywhere they should be there Let us see then whether any such were here It is earnestly pleaded by all who are for Lay-Elders that the Elders spoken of Acts 20. 17. were the particular Elders of the Church of Ephesus to whom Paul spoke v. 28. where we may find their Office at large described Take heed therefore unto your selves and all the flock over which God hath made you 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Bishops or Overseers Here we see both the names Elders and Bishops confounded again so that he that was an Elder was a Bishop too and the Office of such Elders described to be a Pastoral charge over a flock which is inconsistent with the notion of a Lay-Elder Paul sent indefinitely for the Elders of the Church to come to him If any such then at Ephesus they must come at this summons all the Elders that came were such as were Pastors of Churches therefore there could be no Lay Elders there I insist not on the argument for maintenance implyed in double Honour which Chrysostome explains by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a supply of necessaries to be given to them as appears by ver 18. which argument Blondel saw such strength in that it brought him quite off from Lay-Elders in that place of Timothy And he that will remove the Controversie from the Scriptures to the Primitive Church as we have no reason to think that if such were appointed they should be so soon laid aside will find it the greatest dâ—fficulty to trace the foot-steps of a Lay-Elder through the Records of antiquity for the three first centuries especially The Writers of the Church speak of no Presbyters but such as preached as appears by Origen Cyprian and Clement of Alexandria Origen saith Omnes Episcopi atque omnâ—s Presbyteri vel Diaconi â—rudiunt nos erudientes adhibent correptionem verbis austerioribus increpant We see all Bishops Presbyters and Deacons wâ—re in his time Preachers So Cyprian Et creâ—ideram quidem Presbyteros Diaconos qui illic praesentes sunt monere vos instruere plenissimè circa Evangelii Legem sicut semper ab antecessoribus nostris factum est and in another Epistle about making Numidicus a Presbyter he thus expresseth it ut ascribatur Presbyterorum Carthaginensium numero nobiscum sedeat in Clero where to sit as one of the Clergy and to be a Presbyter are all one Again had there been any such Elders it would have belonged to them to lay hands on those that were reconciled to the Church after Censures now hands were onely laid on ab Episcopo Clero as the same Cyprian tells us Clemens Alexandrinus describing the Office of a Presbyter hath these words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 where Teaching is looked on as his proper work And elsewhere more fully and expresly discoursing of the service of God and distinguishing it according to the twofold service of men 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 he applies these to the Churches 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The former he explains afterwards 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 A Presbyter is one that is ordained or appointed for the instruction of others in order to their amendment implying thereby the Office of a Presbyter to be wholly conversant about teaching others to whom on that account the art of making others better doth properly belong So much may suffice for those first times of the Church that there were no Presbyters then but such as had the Office of Teaching And for the times afterwards of the Church let it suffice at present to produce the Testimony of a Council held in the beginning of the seventh Century who absolutely Decree against all Lay-persons medling in Church-affairs Nova actione didicimus quosdam ex nostro Collegio contra mores Ecclesiasticos laicos habere in rebus Divinis constitutos Oeconomos Proinde pariter tractantes eligimus ut unusquisque nostrûm secundum Chalcedonensium Patrum decreta ex proprio Clero Oeconomum sibi constituat Indecorum est enim Laicum esse vicarium Episcopi saculares in Ecclesia judicare iâ— uno enim eodemque Officiâ— non debet esse dispar professio A Canon directly leveld against all Lay-Chancellours in Bishops Courts and such Officials But doth with the same force take away all Lay-Elders as implying it to be wholly against the rule of the Church to have secular persons to judge in the Church But although I suppose this may be sufficient to manifest the no Divine right of Lay-Elders yet I do not therefore absolutely condemn all use of some persons chosen by the people to be as their representatives for managing their interest in the affairs of the Church For now the voice of the people which was used in the Primitive times is grown out of use such a constitution whereby two or more of the peoples choice might be present at Church debates might be very useful so they be looked on onely as a prudential humane constitution and not as any thing founded on Divine right So much may serve for the first Ground of the probability of the Apostles not observing one setled Form of Church-Government which was from the different state quantity and condition of the Churches by them planted The second was from the multitude of unfixed Officers residing in some places who managed the Affairs of the Church in chief during their Residence Such were the Apostles and Evangelists and all persons almost of note in Scripture They were but very sew and those in probability not the ablest who were left at home to take care of the spoil the strongest and ablest like Commanders in an Army were not setled in any Troop but went up and down from this company to that to order them and draw them forth and while they were they had the chief authority among them but as Commandets of the Army and not as Officers of the Troop Such were Evangelists who were sent sometimes into this Countrey to put the Churches in order there sometimes into another but where ever they were they acted as Evangelists and not as fixed Officers And sâ—câ— were Timothy and Titus notwithstanding all the Opposition made against it as will appear to any that will take an impartial Survey of the arguments on both sides Now where there were in some places Evangelists in others not and in many Churches it may be no other Officers but these it will appear that the Apostles did not observe one constant Form but were with the Evangelists travelling abroad to the Churches and ordering things in them as they saw cause But as to this I have anticipated my self already The last ground was from the different custome observed in the Churches after the Apostles times For no other rational account can be given of the different opinions of Epiphanius Ierome and
propounded method to examine what light the practice of the Church in the ages succeeding the Apostles will cast upon the controversie we are upon For although according to the principles established and â—aid down by us there can be nothing setled as an universal Law for the Church but what we find in Scriptures yet because the general practice of the Church is conceived to be of â—o great use for understanding what the Apostles intentions as well as actions were we shall chearfully pass over this Rubicon because not with an intent to increase divisions but to find out some further evidence of a way to compose them Our Inquiry then is Whether the primitive Church did conceive its self obliged to observe unalterably one individual form of Government as delivered down to them either by a Law of Christ or an universal constitution of the Apostles or else did only settle and order things for Church-government according as it judged them tend most to the peace and settlement of the Church without any antecedent obligation as necessarily binding to observe onely one course This latter I shall endeavour to make out to have been the onely Rule and Law which the primitive Church observed as to Church-government viz. the tendency of its constitutions to the peace and unity of the Church and not any binding Law or practice of Christ or his Apostles For the demonstrating of which I have made choyce of such arguments as most immediately teâ—d to the proving of it For If the power of the Church and its officers did encrease meerly from the inlargement of the bounds of Churches if no one certain form were observed in all Churches but great varieties as to Officers and Diocesses if the course used in setling the power of the chief Officers of the Church was from agreement with the civil government if notwithstanding the superiority of Bishops the ordination of Presbyters was owned as valid if in all other things concernning the Churches Polity the Churches prudence was looked on as a sufficient ground to establish things then we may with reason conciude that nothing can be inferred from the practice of the primitive Church Demonstrative of any one fixed form of Church-government delivered from the Apostles â—o them Having thus by a lâ—ght 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 drawn ouâ— the several lines of the pourtraiture of the Polity of the antient Church we now proceed to fill them up though not with that life which it deserves yet so far as the model of this Discourse will permit Our first argument then is from the rise of the extent of the power of Church-Governours which I assert not to have been from any order of the Apostles but from the gradual encrease of the Churches committed to their charge This will be best done by the observation of the growth of Churches and how proportionably the power of the Governours did increase with it As to that there â—re four observable steps or periods as so many ages of growth in the primitive Churches First when Churches and Cities were of the same extent Secondly when Churches took in the adjoyning Terriâ—ories with the Villages belonging to the Cities Thirdly when several Cities with their Villages did associate for Church-Government in the same Province Fourthly when several provinces did associate for Government in the Roman Empire Of these in their order The first period of Church government observable in the primitive Church was when Churches were the same with Christians in whole Cities For the clearing of this I shall first shew that the primitive constitution of Churches was in a society of Christians in the same City Secondly I shall consider the form and manner of Government then observed among them Thirdly consider what relation the several Churches in Cities had to one another First That the Primitive Churches were Christians of whole Cities It is but a late and novel acception of the word Church whereby it is taken for stated fixed congregations for publike Worship and doubtless the original of it is only from the distinction of Churches in greater Cities into their several 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or publike places for meeting whence the Scotch Kirk and our English Church so that from calling the place Church they proceed to call the persons there meeting by that name and thence some think the name of Church so appropriated to such a society of Christians as may meet at such a place that they make it a matter of Religion not to call those places Churches from whence originally the very name as we use it was derived But this may be pardoned among other the religioâ—s weaknesses of well meaning but lesse knowing people A Church in its primary sense as it answers to the Greek 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 applyed to Christians is a society of Christians living together in one City whether meeting together in many Congregations or one is not at all material because they were not called a Church as meeting together in one place but as they were a Society of Christians inhabiting together in such a City not but that I think a society of Christians might be called a Church where-ever they were whether in a City or Countrey but because the first and chief mention we meet with in Scripture of Churches is of such as did dwell together in the same Cities as is evident from many pregnant places of Scripture to this purpose As Acts 14. 23. compared with Titus 1. 5. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in one place is the same with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the other Ordaining Elders in every Church and ordaining Elders in every City which implyes that by Churches then were meant the body of Christians residing in the Cities over which the Apostles ordained Elders to rule them So Acts 16. 4. 5. As they went through the Cities c. and so were the Churches established in the faith The Churches here were the Christians of those Cities which they went through So Acts 20. 17. He sent to Ephesus and called the Elders of the Church If by the Elders we mean as all those do we now deal with the Elders of Ephesus then it is here evident that the Elders of the Church and of the City are all one but what is more observable ver 28. he calls the Church of that City 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Take heed to your selves and to the flock over which God hath made you overseâ—rs to feed the Church of God Where several things are observable to our purpose first that the body of Christians in Ephesus is called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the flock of the Church and not the several flocks and Churches over which God hath made you Bishops Secondly That all these spoken to were such as had a pastoral charge of this one flock Paul calls them 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and chargeth them 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to do the work of a Pastor towards it So
that either there must be several Pastors taking the pastoral charge of one Congregation which is not very suitable with the principles of those I now dispute against or else many congregations in one City are all called but one Church and one flock which is the thing I plead for And therefore it is an observation of good use to the purpose in hand that the New Testâ—ment speaking of the Churches in a Province alwayes speakes of them in the plural number as the Churches of Iudaea Gal. 1. 22 1 Thes. 2 14. The Churches of Samaâ—iâ— and Galilee Acts 9. 31. The Churches of Syria and Câ—icia Acts 15. 41. The Churches of Galatia 1 Cor. 16. 1. Gal 1. 1 2. The Churches of Asia Rom. 16. 16. Rev. 1. 11. But when it speaks of any particular City then it is alwayes used in the Singular number as the Church at Jerusalem Acts 8. 1. 15 4 22. The Church at Antioch Acts 11. 26 13. 1. The Church at Corinth 1 Cor. 1. 2. 2 Cor. 1. 1â— and so of all the seven Churches of Asia the Church of Ephesus Smyrna c. So that we cannot find in Scripture the least footstep of any difference between a Church and the Christians of such a City whereas had the notion of a Church been restrained to a particular congregation doubtlesse we should have found some difference as to the Scriptures speaking of the several places For it is scarce imaginable that in all those Cities spoken of as for example Ephesus where Paul was for above two years together that there should be no more converts then would make one Congregation Accordingly in the times immediately after the Apostles the same language and custom continued still So Clement inscribes his Epistle 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Church of God which is at Rome to the Church of God which is at Corinth So by that it is plain that all the Believers at that time in Rome made up but one Church as likewise did they at Corinth Sâ— Polycarp in the Epistle written by him from the Church at Smyrna to the Church at Phylomilium 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and so in his Epistle to the Philippians 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Polycarp and the Elders with him to the Church which is at Philippi Origen compares the Church of God at Athens Corinth Alexandria and oâ—her places with the people of those several Cities and so the Churches Senate with the peoples and the Churches 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is his word chief Ruler with the Maior of those Cities implying thereby that as there was one civil Society in such places to make a City so there was a Society of Christians incorporated together to make a Church So that a Church setled with a full power belonging to it and exerc sing all acts of Church-discipline within its self was antiently the same with the Society of Christians in a City Not but that the name Church is attributed sometimes to Families in which sense Tertullian speaks Ubi duo aut tres sunt ibi Ecclesia est licet Laici And may on the same account be attributed to a small place such as many imagine the Church of Cenchrea to be it being a port to Corinth on the Sinus Sarònicus but Stephanus Byzantinus calls it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Suidas saith no more of it then that it is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Strabo and Pausanias only speak of the scituation of it as one of the poâ—ts of Corinth lying in the way from Tegaea to Argos nor is any more said of it by Pliny then that it answers to Lechaeum the port on the other side upon the Sinus Corinthiacus Ubbo Emmius in his description of old Greece calls both of them oppidula duo cum duobus praeclaris portubus in ora utriusq maris but withall adds that they were duo urbis emporia the two Marts of Corinth therefore in probability because of the great Merchandise of that City they were much frequented Cenchrea was about twelve furlongs distance from Corinth Where Pareus conjectures the place of the meeting of the Church of Corinth was because of the troubles they met with in the City and therefore they retired thither for greater conveniency and privacy which conjecture will appear not to be altogether improbable when we consider the furious opposition made by the Iews against the Christians at Corinth Acts 18. 12. and withall how usual it was both for Jews and Christians to have their place of meeting at a distance from the City As Acts 16. 13. They went out from Philippi to the River side where there was a Proseucha or a place of prayer where the Iews of Philippi accustomed to meet According to this interpretation the Church at Cenchrea is nothing else but the Church of Corinth there assembling as the Reformed Church at Paris hath their meeting place at Charenton which might be called the Church of Charenton from their publick Assemblies there but the Church of Paris from the Residence of the chief Officers and people in that City So the Church of Corinth might be called the Church at Cenchrea upon the same account there being no evidence at all of any setled Government there at Cenchrea distinct from that at Corinth So that this place which is the only one brought against that position I have laid down hath no force at all against it I conclude then that Churches and Cities were originally of equal extent and that the formal constitution of a Church lyes not in their capacity of assembling in one place but acting as a society of Christians imbodyed together in one City having Officers and Rulers among themselves equally respecting the whole number of Believers Which leads to the second thing the way and manner then used for the modelling the government of these Churches Which may be considered in a double period of time either before several Congregations in Churches were setled or after those we now call Parishes were divided First before distinct Congregations were setled and this as far as I can find was not only during the Apostles times but for a competent time after generally during the persecution of Churches For we must distinguish between such a number of Believers as could not conveniently assemble in one place and the distributing of Believers into their several distinct congregations I cannot see any reason but to think that in the great Churches of Ierusalem Antioch Ephesus and the like there were more Believers then could well meet together considering the state of those times but that they were then distributed into their several 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Centuries as the Athenians and Romans divided their people i. e. into several worshipping congregations with peculiar Officers I see no reason at all for it They had no such conveniences then of setling several congregations under their particular Pastors but all the Christians in a City looked upon
manner of Government in the Church was now The Bishop sitting as the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the Sanhedrin and the Presbyters 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as Ignatius expresseth it acting as the Common-Council of the Church to the Bishop the Bishop being as the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 answering to the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and the Presbytery as the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 answering to the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as Origen compares them Whereby he fully describes the form of Government in his time in the Church which was by an Ecclesiastical Senate and a President in it ruling the Society of Christians in every City So that the Presbytery of a great City joyning together for Government were never accounted a Provincial Assembly but onely the Senate for Government of the Church in the whole City The erecting Presbyteries for every particular congregation in a City is a stranger to the ancient constitution of Churches and hath given the greatest rise to the Independency of particular congregations For if every particular congregation be furnished with a Government within its self then men are apt presently to think that there is no necessity of subordination of it to any higher Church-power Whereas if that pâ—imitive constitution of Churches be held that they are Societies of Christians under an Ecclesiastical Senate in a City then it is evident that the congregations must truckâ—e under the great body as receiving their government by and their Officers from that Senate of the Church which superintends and orders the affairs of that whole Body of Christians residing in such a place And this crumbling of Church-power into every congregation is a thing absolutely disowned by the greatest and most learned Patrons of Presbytery beyond the Seas as may be seen both in Calvin Bâ—za Salmasius Blondel Gersome Bucer and others It is much disputed when the first division of Parochiall Congregations in Cities began Platina attributes it to Evaristus and so doth Damasus Hic Titulos in Urbe Roma divisit Presbyteris He divided the several Parish Churches to the Presbyters these were called then Tituli Baronius gives a double reason of the name either from goods belonging to the Princes Excâ—equer which have some sign imprinted upon them that it may be known whose they are So saith he the sign of the Cross was put upon the Churches to make it known that they were devoted to Gods Service or else they are called Tituli because the severall Presbyters did receive their Titles from them but by the Leave of the great Cardinal another Reason may be given of the name more proper then either of these It hath been observed by Learned men that the generall meetings of the Christians were in the Coemeteria or Dormitories of Christians So they called the Sepulchres then which were great and capacious Vaults fit to receive many people in them two chief grounds of the Christians meeting in those places the first was their own security because the Heathens looked on it as a matter of Religion manes temerare sepultos to disturb the ashes of the dead but the chief Reason was to encourage themselves to suffeâ— Martyrdom by the examples of those who had gone before them and lay buried there thence they were called Martyrum memoriae because they did call to mind their actions and constancy in the Faith Now from these Coemeteria was afterwards the original of Churches whence persons most reverenced for Piety were wont still to be buried in Churches not for any Holiness of the place but because in such places the Martyrs lay buried the Churches being raised over the Vaults wherein the Martyra lay intombed Now Churches being raised from these Coemeteries which were called memoriae Martyrum that they might still retain somwhat intimating their former use were called Tituli For Titulus as Santius observes is signum aliquod aut monumentum quod docet ibi latere aliquid aut accidisse cujus nolumus perire memoriam thence Statues are called Tituli So Gen. 35. 20. Erexit Iacob Titulum super Sepulchrum as the Vulgar Latine renders it and Gen. 28. 18. Surgens ergo Iacob mane tulit lapidem quem suâ—posuerat capiti suo erexit in titulum So Absalom 2 Sam. 18. 18. erexit sibi Titulum So that what was erected to maintain and preserve the memory of any thing was called Titulus and thence the Churches being built upon the Coemiteries of the Martyrs were on that account called Tituli because intended for the preservation of their memories This account of the Original of the name I leave to the judgement of Learned men but to proceed I confess it seems not probable to me that these Tituli were so soon divided as the time of Evaristus who lived in the time of Trajan when the persecution was hot against the Christians but Damasus seems not to believe himself for in the life of Dionysius â—e saith Hic Presbyteris ecclesias divisit coemeteria paroecias dioeceses instituit but most probably it began assoon as the Churches enjoyed any ease and peace it being so necessary for the convenient meeting of such a multitude of Christians as there was then In the life of Marcellus about fourty years after Dionysius we read of twenty five Titles in the Church of Rome of which number what use is made for interpreting the number 666. may be seen in Mr. Potters ingenuous Tract on that Subject But when afterwards these Titles were much increased those Presbyters that were placed in the ancient Titles which were the chief among them were called Cardinales Presbyteri which were then looked on as chief of the Clergy and therefore were the chief members of the Council of Presbyters to the Bishop So that at this day the Conclave at Rome and the Pope's Consistory is an evident Argument in this great degeneracy of it of the Primitive constitution of the Government of the Church there by a Bishop acting with his Colledge of Presbyters Neither was this proper to Rome alone but to all other great Cities which when the number of Presbyters was grown so great that they could not conveniently meet and joyn with the Bishop for ordering the Government of the Church there were some as the chief of them chosen out from the rest to be as the Bishops Council and these in many places as at Milan Ravenna Naples c. were called Cardinales Presbyteri as well as at Rome which were abrogated by Pius Quintus 1568 but the memory of them is preserved still in Cathedral Churches in the Chapter there where the Dean was nothing else but the Archipresbytâ—r and both Dean and Prebendaries were to be assistant to the Bishop in the regulating the Church-affairs belonging to the Citie while the Churches were contained therein So much shall suffice for the model of Government in the Churches while they were contained within the same precincts with the City its self We come in the
third place to consider what relation these Churches in greater Cities had one to another and to the lesser Cities which were under them And here the grand question to be discussed is this Whether the Churches in greater Cities by Apostolical institution had the Government Ecclesiastical not only of the lesser Villages under them but likewise of all lesser Cities under the civil Jurisdiction of the Metropolis The affirmative is of late asserted by some persons of great renown and learning The first I find maintaining this Hypothesis of the divine right of Metropolitans is Fregevilaeus Gantius one of the Reformed Church of France who hath spent a whole Chapter in his Palma Christianâ— to that purpose and hath made use of the same Arguments which have been since improved by all the advantages which the learning of a Reverend Drâ— could add to them But because this principle manifestly destroyes the main foundation of this discourse it is here requisite to examine the grounds on which it stands that thereby it may be fully cleared whether the subordination of less Churches to greater did onely arise from the mutual association of Churches among themselves or from Apostolical appointment and institution The two pillars which the divine right of Metropolitans is built upon are these First that the Cities spoken of in the New Testament in which Churches are planted were Metropoles in the civil Sense Secondly that the Apostles did so far follow the model of the civil Government as to plant Metropolitan Churches in those Cities If either of these prove infirm the Fabrick erected upon them must needs fall and I doubt not but to make it appear that both of them are I begin with the first The notion of a Metropolis is confessed to be this A City wherein the Courts of a civill Judicature were kept by the Roman Governours under whose Jurisdiction the whole Province was contained The Cities chiefly insisted on are the seven Cities of the Lydian Asia and Philippi which is called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 As for the Cities of the Proconsular Asia although the bounds and limits of it are not so clear as certainly to know whether all these Cities were comprehended under it or no Strabo telling us that Phrygia Lydia Caria and Mysia are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 very hard to be distinguished from one another it being true of all four which was said of Mysia and Phrygia 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Phrygian and Mysian Borders are distinct but it iâ— is hard to find them out For Laodicea is by Ptolomy referred to Caria Strabo and many others place it in Phrygia onely Stephanus Bizantinus placeth it in Lydia but granting all that is produced by the late most excellent Primate of Armagh in his Learned Discourse of the Proconsular Asia to prove all these seven Cities to be in the bounds of this Lydian Asia yet it is far from being evident that all these Cities were Metropoles in the Civil Sense For Strabo tells us That the Romans did not divide these places by Nations â—but according to the Diocâ—sses wherein they kept their Courts and exercised Judicature These Cities wherein the Courts of Judicature were kept were the Metropoles and no other Of five of them Laodicea Smyrna Sardis Ephesus and Pergamus Pliny saith that the Conventus the Civil Courts were kept in them and they had Jurisdiction over the other places by him mentioned but for the other two Thyatira and Philadelphia Philadelphia is expresly mentioned as one of those Cities which was under the jurisdictio Sardiana so far was it from being a Metropoles of its self and Thyatira mentioned as one of the ordinary Cities without any addition of Honour at all to it And for Philadelphia it was so â—ar unlikely to be a Metropolis that Strabo tells us it was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 very subject to Earth-quakes and therefore had very few inhabitants those that â—â—â— live most part in the fields where they have 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a very rich soil but Strabo for all that wonders at the boldness of the men that durst to venture their lives there and most of all admires what was in those mens heads who first built a City there Is it then any wayes probable that this should be chosen for a Metropolis in such an abundance of fair and rich Cities as lay thereabout But a Salvo is found out for Plinyes not mentioning them as Metropoles because the addition of these two mother Cities seemeth to have been made when Vespasian added those many new Provinces to the old Government which Suâ—tonius speaks of but this Salvo doth not reach the sore For first Pliny wrote his natural History not in the beginning but toward the latter end of the Empire of Flavius Vespasianus when Titus had been six times Consul â—s he himself saith in his Preface therefore if there had been any such change Pliny would have mentioned it Secondly the Provinces added by Vespasian are expresly set down by Suâ—â—oniuâ— viz. Achaia Lysia Rhodus Byzantium Samos Thracia Cilivia Comagena not the least mention of the Lydian or Procoâ—sular Asia or any alteration made in the Metropolis there But yet there is a further attempt made to make Philadelphia a Metropolis which is from a subscription of Eustathius in the Council of Constantinople sub Menna Act 5. who calls himself the Bishop of the Metropolis of Philadelphia but what validity there is in such a subscription in the time of the fifth Century to prove a Metropolis in the first lâ—t any one judge that doth but consider how common â— thing it was to alter Metropoles especially after the new disposition of the Roman Empire by Constantinâ— But if we do stand to the Notitiâ— to determine this controversie which are certainly more to be valued then a single subscription the Metropolitanship of these Cities of the Lydian Asia will be irrecoverably overthrown For in the old Notitia taken out of the Vatican MS. and set forth with the rest by Caroâ—â—â—â— Sancto-Paulo in his Appendix to his Geographia sacra Ephesus is made the Metropolis of the Province of Asia Sardis of Lydia Laodicea of Phrygia Capatiana as it is there written for Pacatiana but Pergamus placed in the Province of Caesarla Cappadocia Philadelphia under Sardis with Thyatyra In the Notitia attributed to Hierâ—clâ—s under the Metropolis of Ephesus is placed Smyrna and Pergamuâ— under Sardiâ— Thyatyra and Philadelphia so likewise in the Notitia of the French Kings Library So that neither in the Civil noâ— Ecclesiastical sense can we find these seven Cities to be all Metropoles We therefore observe St. Pauls course and leaving Asia we come into Macedonia where we are told that Philippi was the Metropolis of Macedonia I know not whether with greater incongruity to the Civil or Ecclesiastical sense in â—oth which I doubt not but to make it appear that Philippi was not the
with them as may be seen in the actions of Paschasinus the Roman Legat in the Council of Chalcedon From whence forward the great Leviâ—than by his tumbling in the waves endeavoured to get the Dominion of all into his hands but God hath at last put a hook into his nostrils and raised up the great instruments of Reformation who like the Sword fish have so pierced into his bowels that by his tumbling he may only hasten his approaching ruine and give the Church every day more hopes of seeing its self freed from the tyranny of an Uâ—urped power By this Scheme and draught now of the increase of the Churches power nothing can be more evident then that it rise not from any divine institution but only from positive Ecclesiastical Laws made according to the several states and conditions wherein the Church was which as it gradually grew up so waâ— the power of the Church by mutual consent fitted to the state of the Church in its several ages Which was the fiâ—st argument that the Primitive Church did not conceive its self bound to observe any one unalterable form of Government This being the chief the rest that follow will sooner be dispatched The second is from the great varieties as to Government which were in several Churches What comes from divine right is observed unalterably in one uniform constant tenour but what we find so much diversified according to several places we may have ground to look on only as an Ecclesiastical constitution which was followed by every Church as it judged convenient Now as to Church Government we may find some Churches without Bishops for a long time some but with one Bishop in a whole Nation many Cities without any where Bishops were common many Churches discontinue Bishops for a great while where they had been no certain rule observed for modelling their Dâ—ocesses where they were still continued Will not all these things make it seem very improbable that it should be an Apostolical institution that no Church should be without a Bishop First then some whole Nations seem to have been without any Bishops at all if we may believe their own Historians So if we may believe the great Antiquaries of the Church of Scotland that Church was governed by their Culdei as they called their Presbyters without any Bishop over them for a long time Iohannes Maior speaks of their instruction in the faith per Sacerdotes Monachos sine Episcopis Scoti in fide eruditi but least that should be interpreted only of theâ—r conversion Iohannes Fordònus is clear and full to their government from the time of their conversion about A. D 263. to the coming of Palladius A. D. 430. that they were only governed by Presbyters and Monks Ante Palladii adventum habebant Scoti fidei Dâ—ctores ac Sacramentorum Ministratores Presbyteros solunmodo vel Monachos ritum sequentes Ecclesiae Primitivae So much mistaken was that learned man who saith That neither Beda nor any other affirms that the Scots were formerly ruled by a Presbyterie or so much as that they had any Presbyter among them Neither is it any wayes sufficient to say that these Presbyters did derive their authority from some Bishops for however we see here a Church governed without such or if they had any they were only chosen from their Culdei much after the custom of the Church of Alexandria as Hector Boethiuâ— doth imply And if we believe Philostorgius the Gothick Churches were planted and governed by Presbyters for above seventy years for so long it was from their first conversion to the time of Ulphilas whom he makes their first Bishop And great probability there is that where Churches were planted by Presbyters as the Church of France by Andochius and Benignus that afterwards upon the encrease of Churches and Presbyters to rule them they did from among themselves choose one to be as the Bishop over them as Pothinus was at Lyons For we nowhere read in those early plantations of Churches that where there were Presbyters already they sent to other Churches to derive Episcopâ—l ordination from them Now for whole Nations having but one Bishop we have the testimony of Sozomen that in Scythia which by the Romans was called Masia inferior 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Although there were many Cities they had but one Bishop The like Godignus relates of the Abâ—ssine Churches Though their Territories be of vast extent there is but only one Bishop in all those Dominions who is the Bishop of Abuna And where Bishops were most common it is evident they looked not on it as an Apostolical rule for every City to have a Bishop which it must have if it was an Apostolical institution for the Church to follow the civil Government Theodoret mentions 800 Churches under his charge in whose Diâ—cess Ptolomy placeth many other Cities of note besides Cirus as Ariseria Regia Ruba Heraclea c. In the Province of Tripoly he reckons nine Cities which had but five Bishops as appears by the Notitia Ecclesiae Africanae In Thracia every Bishop had several Cities under hâ—m The Bishop of Heraclea that and Panion the Bishop of Byze had it and Arcadiapolis of Coela had it and Callipolis Sabsadia had it and Aphrodisias It is needless to produce more instances of this nature either ancient or modern they being so common and obvious But further we find Bishops discontinued for a long time in the greatest Churches For if there be no Church without a Bishop where was the Church of Rome when from the Martyrdome of Fabian and the banishment of Lucius the Church was governed only by the Clergy So the Church of Carthage when Cyprian was banished the Church of the East when Meletius of Antioeh Eusebius Samosatenus Pelagius of Laodicea and the rest of the Orthodox Bishops were banished for ten years space and Flavianus and Diodorus two Presbyters ruled the Church of Antioch the mean while The Church of Carthage was twenty four years without a Bishop in the time of Hunerik King of the Vandals and when it was offered them that they might have a Bishop upon admitting the Arrians to a free exercise of their Religion among them their answer was upon those terms Ecclesia Episcopum non delictatur habere and Balsamon speaking of the Christian Churches in the East determines it neither safe nor necessary in their present state to have Bishops set up over them And lastly for their Diocesses it is evident there was no certain Rule for modelling them In some places they were far less then in others Generally in the primitive and Eastern Churches they were very small and little as far more convenient for the end of them in the government of the Churches under the Bishops charge it being observed out of Walafridus Strabo by a learned man Fertur in Orientis partibus per singulas urbes praefecturas singulas
esse Episcoporum gubernationes In Africk if we look but into the writings of Augustine we may find hundreds of Bishops resorting to one Council In Ireland alone Saint Patrick is said by Ninius at the first Plantation of Christianity to have founded 365. Bishopricks So Sozomen teâ—ls us that among the Arabians and Cyprians Novatians Montanists 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the very Villages had Bishops among them The next evidence that the Church did not look upon it self as by a Divine Law to observe any one model of Government is the conforming the Ecclesiasticall Government to the Civil For if the Obligation arose from a Law of GOD that must not be altered according to civil coâ—stitutions which are variable according to the different state and conditions of things If then the Apostles did settle things by a standing Law in their own times how comes the model of Church-Government to alter with the civil Form Now that the Church did generally follow the civil Government is freely acknowledged and insisted on by Learned Persons of all sides especially after the division of the Roman Empire by Constantine the Great The full making out of which is a work too large to be here undertaken and hath been done to very good purpose already by Berterius Salmasius Gothofred Blondel and others in their Learned discourses of the suburbicarian Provinces Which whether by them we understand that which did correspond to the Praefecture of the Provost of Rome which was within a hundred miles compass of the City of Rome or that which answered to the Vicarius Urbis whose jurisdiction was over the ten Provinces distinct from Italy properly so called whose Metropolis was Milan or which is most probable the Metropolitan Province answering to the jurisdiction of the Praefectus Urbis and the Patriarchate of the Roman Bishop to the Vicarius Urbis which way soever we take it we see it answered to the Civil Government I shall not here enter that debate but onely briefly at present set down the Scheme of both Civil and Ecclesiastical Government as it is represented by our Learned Breerwood The whole Empire of Rome was divided into XIII Dioceses whereof â—even belonged to the East Empire and six beside the Praefecture of the City of Rome to the West Those thirteen Dioceses together with that Praefecture contained among them 120. Provinces or thereabout so that to every Diocess belonged the administration of sundry Provinces Lastly every Province contained many Cities within their Territories The Cities had for their Rulers those inferiour Judges which in the Law are called Defensores Civitatum and their seats were the Cities themselves to which all the Towns and Villages in their several Territories were to resort for Justice The Provinces had for theirs either Proconsuls or Consulares or Praesides or Correctores four sundry appellations but almost all of equal authority and their Seats were the chiefest Cities or Metropoles of the Provinces of which in every Province there was one to which all inferiour Cities for Judgement in matters of importance did resort Lastly the Dioceses had for theirs the Lieutenants called Vicarii and their Seats were the Metropoles or Principal Cities of the Diocess whence the Edicts of the Emperour or other Lawes were publâ—shed and sent abroad into all the Provinces of the Diocess and where the Praetorium and chief Tribunal for Judgement was placed to deâ—ermiue Appeals and minister Justice as might be occasion to all the Provinces belonging to that Jurisdiction And this was the Disposition of the Roman Governour And truly it is wonderful saith that Learâ—ed Authour how nearly and exactly the Church in her Government did imitate this Civil Ordination of the Roman Magistrates For first in every City as there was a Defensor Civitatis for secular Government so was there placed a Bishop for Spiritual Regiment in every City of the East and in every City of the West almost a several Bishop whose Jurisdiction extended but to the City and the places within the Territory For which cause the Jurisdiction of a Bishop was anciently called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifying not as many ignorant Novelists think a Parish as now the word is taken that is the places or habitations near a Church but the Towns and Villages near a City all which together with the City the Bishop had in charge Secondly in every Province as there was a President so there was an Arch-Bishop and because his Seat was the principal City of the Province he was commonly known by the name of Metropolitan Lastly in every Diocess as there was a Lievtenant-General so was there a Primate seated also in the principal City of the Diocess as the Lieutenant was to whom the last determining of Appeals from all the Provinces in differences of the Clergy and the soveraign care of all the Diocess for sundry points of Spiritual Government did belong By this you may see that there were XI Primates besides the three Patriarchs for of the XIII Dioceses besides the Praefecture of the City of Rome which was administred by the Patriarch of Rome that of Egypt was governed by the Patriarch of Alexandria and that of the Orient by the Patriarch of Antiochia and all the rest by the Primates between whom and the Patriarchs was no difference of Jurisdiction and power but onely of some Honour which accrued to them by the Dignity of their Sees as is clearly expressed in the third Canon of the Council of Constantinople 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 whereby Constantinople is advanded to the honorary Title of a Patriarch next to Rome because it was New Rome Whereby it is evident that the Honour belonging to the Bishop of old Rome did arise from its being the Imperial City The Honour of the Bishop rising as Austin saith that of the Deacons of Rome did propter magnificentiam urbis Romanae quae caput esse videour omnium civitatum Hereby we now fully see what the Original was of the power of Arch-Bishops Metropolitans and Patriarchs in the Church viz. the contemperating the Ecclesiastical-Government to the civil The next Evidence that the Church did not look upon its self as bound by a Divine Law to a certain Form of Government but did order things itself in order to Peace and Unity is that after Episcopal Government was setled in the Church yet Ordination by Presbyters was looked on as valid For which these instances may suffice About the year 390. Iohannes Cassianus reports that one Abbot Daniel inâ—eriour to none of those who lived in the Desart of Scetis was made a Deacon à B. Paâ—hnutio solitudinis ejusdem Presbytero In tantum enim virtutibus ipsius adgaudebat ut quem vitae meritis sibi gratiâ parem noverat coaequare sibi etiam Sacerdotti Honore festinaret Siquidem nequaquam ferens in inferiore eum ministerio diutius immorari optansque sibiâ—et successâ—rem dignissimum providere superstes eum
Coactive nor meerly Arbitrary viz. such a one as immediately results from Divine Institution and doth suppose consent to submit to it as a necessary Duty in all the members of this Society This Power it is evident is not meerly Arbitrary either in the Governours or Members for the Governours derive their Power or right of Governing from the institution of Christ and are to be regulated by his Laws in the execution of it and the Members though their consent be necessarily supposed yet that consent is a Duty in them and that duty doth imply their submission to the Rulers of this Society neither can this power be called Coactive in the â—ense it is commonly taken for coactive power and external force are necessary correlates to each other but we suppose no such thing as a power of outward force to be given to the Church as such for that properly belongs to a Common-wealth But the power which I suppose to be lodged in the Church is such a power as depends upon a Law of a Superiour giving right to Govern to particular persons over such a Society and making it the Duty of all Members of it to submit unto it upon no other penalties then the exclusion of them from the priviledges which that Society enjoyes So that supposing such a Society as the Church is to be of Divine Institution and that Christ hath appointed Officers to rule it it necessarily follows that those Officerâ— must derive their power i. e. their right of Governing this Society not meerly from consent and confederation of parties but from that Divine Institution on which the Society depends The â—â—ht of understanding the right notion of power in the sense here â—â—â— down is certainly the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of Erastianism and that which hath given occasion to so many to question any such thing as Power in the Church especially when the more zealous then judicious defenders of it have rather chosen to hang it upon some doubtfull places of Scripture then on the very Naturâ— and Constitution of the Christian Church as a Society instituted by Iesus Christ. This being then the nature of power in general it is I suppose clear that an outward coactive force is not necessary in order to it for if some may have a Right to Govern and others may be obliged to obedience to those persons antecedently to any Civil Constitution then such persons have a just power to inflict censures upon such as transgress the Rules of the Society without any outward force It is here very impertinent to dispute what effects such censures can have upon wilful persons without a Coactive power If I can prove that there is a right to inflict them in Church-Officers and an Obligation to submit to them in all Offenders I am not to trouble my self with the event of such things as depend upon Divine Institutions I know it is the great Objection of the followers of Erastus that Church censures are inflicted upon persons unwilling to receive them and therefore must imply external and coactive force which is repugnant to the nature of a Church But this admits according to the Principles here established of a very easie solution for I deny not that Church Power goes upon consent but then it 's very plain here was an antecedent consent to submit to censures in the very entrance into this Society which is sufficient to denominate it a voluntary act of the persons undergoing it and my reason is this every person entring into a Society parts with his own freedom and liberty as to matters concerning the governing of it and professeth submission to the Rules and Orders of it now a man having parted with his freedom already cannot reassume it when he please for then he is under an Obligation to stand to the Covenants made at his entrance and consâ—quently his undergoing what shall be laid upon him by the Lawes of this Society must be supposed to be voluntary as depending upon his consent at first entrance which in all Societies must be supposed to hold still else there would follow nothing but confusion in all Societies in the World if every man were at liberty to break his Covenants when any thing comes to lye upon him according to the Rules of the Society which he out of some private design would be unwilling to undergo Thus much may serve to settle aright the Notion of Power the want of understanding which hath caused all the confusion of this Controversie The next thing is In what Notion we are to consider the Church which is made the subject of this Power As to which we are to consider This Power either as to its right or in actu primo or as to its exercise or in actu secundo Now if we take this Power as to the fundamental Right of it then it belongs to that Universal Church of Christ which subsists as a visible Society by vertue of that Law of Christ which makes an owning the Profession of Christianity the Duty of all Church members If we consider this Power in the exercise of it then it being impossible that the Universall Church should perform the executive part of this power relating to offences I suppose it lodged in that particular Society of Christians which are united together in one body in the community of the sâ—me Government but yet so as that the administration of this Power doth not belong to the body of the Society considered complexly but to those Officers in it whose care and charge it is to have a peculiar oversight and inspection over the Church and to redress all disorders in it Thus the visive faculty is fundamentally lodged in the Soul yet all exterior acts of sight are performed by the Eyes which are the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Overseers of the Body as the other are of the Church so that the exercise and administration of this power belongs to the speciall Officers and Governours of the Church none else being capable of exercising this Power of the Church as such but they on whom it is settled by the Founder of the Church it 's self This Society of the Church may be again considered either as subsisting without any influence from the Civil Power or as it is owned by and incorporated into a Christian State I therefore demand Whether it be absolutely necessary for the subsistence of this Christian Society to be upheld by the Civil Power or no And certainly none who consider the first and purest Ages of the Christian Church can give any entertainment to the Affirmative because then the Church flourished in it's greatest purity not onely when not upheld but when most violently opposed by the Civil Power If so then it 's being united with the Civil State is onely accidental as to the constitution a Church and if this be onely accidental then it must be supposed furnished with every thing requisite to it 's well ordering accidentally to
any such Union and abstractly from it For can we imagine our Blâ—ssed Saviour should institute a Society and leave it destitute of means to uphold it's self unless it fell into the hands of the civil Power or that he left every thing tending thereto meerly to Prudence and the Arbitrary constitutions of the persons joyning together in this Society Did our Saviour take care there should be a Society and not provide for means to uphold it Nay it is evident he not onely appointed a Society but Officers to rule it Had those Officers then a Right to Govern it or no by vertue of Christs institution of them if not they were rather Bibuli than Caesares Cyphers than Consuls in the Church of God If they had a power to Govern doth not that necessarily imply a Right to inflict censures on Offenders unless we will suppose that either there can be no Offenders in a Christian Church or that those Offenders do not vâ—olate the Laws of the Society or there be some Prohibition for them to exercise their power over them which is to give power with one hand and take it away with the other or that this power cannot extend so far as to exclude any from the Priviledges of the Church which is the thing to be discussed Having thus cleared our way I now come to the Resolution of the Question its self in order to which I shall endeavour to demonstrate with what evidence the Subjâ—ct is capable of these following things First that the Church is a peculiar Society in its own Nature distinct from the Common-wealth Secondly that the power of the Church over its members doth not arise from meer confederation or consent of Parties Thirdly That this Power of the Church doth extend to the exclusion of offenders from the Priviledges of it Fourthly That the Fundamental Rights of the Church do not escheat to the Common-wealth upon their being united in a Christian State If these Principles be established the Churches Power will stand upon them as on a firm and unmoveable Basis. I begin with the first That the Church is a peculiar Society in its own Nature distinct from the Common-wealth which I prove by these Arguments 1. Those Societies which are capable of subsisting apart from each other are really and in their own Nature distinct from one another but so it is with the Church and Common wealth For there can be no greater Evidence of a Reall Distinction than Mutual Separation and I think the proving the possibility of the Souls existing separate from the body is one of the strongest Arguments to prove it to be a substance really distinct from the body to which it is united although we are often fain to go the other way to work and to prove possibility of separation from other Arguments evincing the Soul to be a distinct substance but the reason of that is for want of evidence as to the state of separate Souls and theiâ— visible existence which is repugnant to the immateriality of their natures But now as to the matter in hand we have all evidence desirable for we are not put to prove possibility of separation meerly from the different constitution of the thingâ— united but we have evidence to Sense of it that the Church hath subsisted when it hath been not onely separated from but persecuted by all civil power It is with many men as to the Union of Church and State as it is with others as to the Union of the Soul and Body when they observe how close the Union is and how much the Soul makes use of the Animal Spirits in most of its Operations and how great a sympathy there is between them that like Hippocrates his Twins they laugh and weep together they are shrewdly put to it how to fancy the Soul to be any thing else than a more vigorous mode of matter so these observing how close an Union and Dependence there is between the Church and State in a Christian Common-wealth and how much the Church is beholding to the civil power in the Administration of its functions are apt to think that the Church is nothing but a higher mode of a Common-wealth considered as Christian. But when it is so evident that the Church hath and may subsist supposing it abstracted from all Civil Power it may be a sufficient demonstration that however neer they may be when united yet they are really and in their own nature distinct from each other Which was the thing to be proved 2. Those are distinct Societies which have every thing distinct in their nature from each other which belong to the Constitution or Government of them but this is evident as to the Church and Common-wealth which will appear because their Charter is distinct or that which gives them their being as a Society Civil Societies are founded upon the necessity of particular mens parting with their peculiar Rights for the preservation of themselves which was the impulsive cause of their entring into societies but that which actually speâ—ks them to be a society is the mutual consent of the several partyes joyning together whereby they make themselves to bee one Body and to have one Common Interest So Cicero de Repub. defines Populus to bee coe'us multitudinis juris consensu utilitatis communione sociatus There is no doubt but Gods general providence is as evidently seen in bringing the World into societies and making them live under Government as in disposing all particular events which happen in those Societies but yet the way which Providence useth in the constitution of these societies is by inclining men to consent to associate for their mutual benefit and advantage So that natural Reason consulting for the good of mankind as to those Rights which men enjoy in common with each other was the main foundation upon which all civil Societies were erected Wee finde no positive Law enactiâ—g the beeing of Civil Societies because Nature its self would prompt men for their own conveniencies to enter into them But the ground and foundation of that Society which we call a Church is a matter which Natural Reason and common Notions can never reach to and therefore an â—ssociating for the preserving of such may be a Philosophical Society but a Christian it cannot be And they that would make a Christian Church to be nothing else but a Society of Essens or an 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of Pythagoreans do either not understand or not consider whereon this Christian Society is founded for it is evident they look on it as a meerly voluntary thing that is not at all setled by any Divine positive Law The truth is there is no principle more consistent with the opinion of those who deny any Church power in a Christian state then this is and it is that which every one who will make good his ground must be driven to for it is evident that in matters meerly voluntary and depending
which are the dishonour of the Society 1 Corinth 4. 1. the spreading of such corruptions further if they pass uncensured 1 Corinth 5. 6. and amendment of the person 1 Cor. 5. 5. Upon these pillars the power of censures rests it self in the Church of God which are the main grounds of penalties in all Societies whatsoever viz. the preservation of the honour of them and preventing of further mischief and doing good to the offending party And that which seems to add a great deal oâ— weight to this instance is that the Apostle checks the Corinthians that before the exercise of the Apostolical Rod they were not of themselves sensible of so great a dishonour to the Church as that was and had not used some means for the removing such a person from their Society And ye are puffed up and have not rather mourned that hee that hath done this deed may be taken away from among you 1 Corinth 5. 2. Therein implying that whether there had been such a thing in the Church or no as the Apostolical Rod it had been the duty of a Christian Society to have done their endeavour in order to the removing such a person from their number But further I cannot understand how it should bee a duty in Christians to withdraw from every brother who walketh disorderly and Church-Officers not to have power to pronounce such a person to be withdrawn from which amounts to excommunication It is not to mee at all material whether they did immediately relate to Civil or Sacred converse concerning which there is so much dispute for in which soever we place it if Church-officers have a power to pronounce such a person to be withdrawn from they have a power of excommunication so we consider this penalty as inflicted on the person in his relation to the Society as a Christian and wiâ—hall how neerly conjoyned their civil and spiritual eating were together 1 Corinth 11. 20 21. and how strongly the argument will hold from Civil to Sacred viz. à remotione unius ad remotionem alterius not from any fancied pollution in Sacris from the company of wicked men but from the dishonour reflecting on the Society from such unworthy persons parâ—aking of the hâ—ghest priviledges of it Thus from these three Hypotheses this Corollary follows that where any persons in a Church do by their open and contumacious offences declare to the world that they are far from being the persons they were supposed to be in their admission into the Church there is a power resident in the Pastors of the Church to debar such persons from the priviledges of it and consequently from Communion in the Lords Supper 1. Because this expresseth the nearest union and closest confederation as the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 among the Grecians Commonwealths did 2. Because this hath been alwayes looked on with greatest veneration in the Church of God and therefore it is least of all fit those persons should be admitted to the highest priviledges of the Church which are unworthy of the lowest of them There remain only some few Objections which are levelled against this opinion concerning the power of excommunication which from the Question being thus stated and proved will be soon removed The first is that this excommunication is an outward punishment and therefore belongs not to Church officers but to the Magistrate 2. Because it neither is nor ever was in the power of any Church officer to debar any offending member from publick worship because any Heathens may come to it 3. It cannot lye as to exclusion from the Lords Supper because Christ is offered as spiritual food as well in the Word Preached as in the Sacrament To these I answer 1. I do not well understand what the Objectors mean by an outward punishment for there can be no punishment belonging to a visible Society such as the Church is here considered to be but it must be visible i. e. outward or a thing to be taken notice of in the World and in this sense I deny that all visible punishment belongs only to the Magistrate but if by outward be meanâ— forcible punishment then I grant that all coactive power belongs to the Magistrate but I deny that excommunication formally considered is a forcible punishment 1. Because every person at his entrance into this Society is supposed to declare his submission to the rules of the Society and therefore whatever he after undergoes by way of penalty in this Society doth depend upon that consent 2. A person stands excommunicate legally and de jure who is declared authoritatively to be no member of the Society though he may be present at the acts of it as a defranchised person may be at those of a Corporation 3. A person falling into those offences which merit excommunication is supposed in so doing voluntarily to renounce his interest in those priviledges the enjoyment of which doth depend upon abstaining from those offences which he wilfully falls into especially if contumacy be joyned with them a 〈…〉 is before excommunication for then nothing is done forcibly towards him for he first relinquisheth his right before the Church-Governor declares him excluded the Society So that the offender doth meritoriously excommunicate himself the Pastor doth it formally by declaring that he hath made himself no member by his offences and contumacy joyned with them To the second I answer That I do not place the formality of excommunication in exclusion from hearing the Word but in debarring the person from hearing tanquam pars Ecclesiae as a member of the Church and so his hearing may be well joyned with that of Heathens and Infidels and not of members of the Church To the third I answer That exclusion from the Lords Supper is not on the accounts mentioned in the Objection but because it is one of the chiefest priviledges of the Church as it is a visible Society Having thus cleared and asserted the power of Excommunication in a Christian church there remains only one enquiry more which is Whether this power doth remain formally in the Church after its being incorporated into the Common wealth or else doth it then escheate wholly into the Civil Power The resolution of which question mainly depends on another spoken to already viz. Whether this power was only a kind of Widows estate which belonged to it only during its separation from the Civil Power or was the Church absolutely infeoffed of it as its perpetual Right belonging to it in all conditions whatsoever it should be in Now that must appear by the Tenure of it and the grounds on which it was conveyed which having been proved already to be perpetual and universal it from thence appears that no accession to the Church can invalidate its former title But then as in case of marriage the right of disposal and well management of the estate coming by the wife belongs to the husband so after the Church is married into the Common-wealth the
â—RENâ—CUM A VVEAPON-SALVE FOR THE Churches Wounds OR THE DIVINE RIGHT OF Particular forms of CHURCH-GOVERNMENT Discuss'd and examin'd according to the Principles of the law of Nature the positive Laws of God the practice of the Apostles and the Primitive Church the judgment of reform'd Divines Whereby a Foundation is laid for the Churches peace and the accommodation of our present differences Humbly tendered to Consideration By Edward Stillingfleete Rector of Sutton in Bedfordshire The Second Edition With an APPENDIX concerning the power of Excommunication in a Christian Church Let your Moderation be known unto all men the Lord is at hand Phil. 4. 5. Si ad decidendas hodiernaâ— controversias jus divinum à positivo seu Ecclesiastico candidâ— separaretur non videretur de iis quae sunt absolutè necessaria inter pios aut moderatos viros longa aut aeris contentio futura Isaac Casaub. ep ad Card. Perron Multum referâ— ad reâ—inendam Ecclesiarum pacem inter ea quae jure divino praecepta sunt quae non sunt accuratè distinguere Grot. de Imper. sum Potestat circa sacra cap. 11. London Printed for Henry Mortlock at the Phoenix in St. Pauls Church-yard neer the little North door 1662. THE PREFACE TO THE READER I Write not to increase the Controversies of the times nor to foment the differences that are among us the one are by far too many the other too great already My onely design is to allay the heat and abate the fury of that Ignis sacer or Erysipelas of contention which hath risen in the face of our Church by the overflowing of that bilious humour which yet appears to have too great predominancy in the spirits of men And although with the poor Persian I can onely bring a hand full of water yet that may be my just Apology that it is for the quenching those flames in the Church which have caused the bells of Aaron to jangle so much that it seems to be a work of the greatest difficulty to make them tunable And were this an Age wherein any thing might be wondered at it would be matter of deserved admiration to hear the noise of these Axes and Hammers so much about the Temple and that after these nigh twenty years carving and hewing we are so rude and unpolished still and so far from being cemented together in the unity of the Spirit and the bond of Peace May we not justly fear that voyce Migremus hinc when we see the Vail of the Temple so rent asunder and the Church its self made a Partition wall to divide the members of it And since the wise and gracious God hath been pleased in such an almost miraculous manner so lately to abatâ— the Land-flood of our civil intestine Divisions how strange must it needs seem if our sacred Contentions if Contentions may be call'd sacred like the waters of the Sanctuary should rise from the Ankle to the Knee till at last they may grow unpassable Must onely the fire of our unchristian animosities be like that of the Temple which was never to be extinguished However I am sure it is such a one as was never kindled from Heaven nor blown up with any breathings of the Holy and Divine Spirit And yet that hath been the aggravation of our Divisions that those whose duty it is to lift up their voyces like Trumpets have rather sounded an Allarm to our contentious spirits then a Parley or Retreat which had been far more suitable to our Messengers of Peace In which respect it might be too truly said of our Church what is spoken of the Eagle in the Greek Apologue 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Eagle saw her breast was wounded sore She stood and weeped much but grieved more But when she saw the dart was feather'd said Woo's me for my own kind hath me destroy'd It is not so long since that version of the vulgar Latine Psal. 68. 15. inter Domini cleros might have been sadly rendred to lye among the pots and Pierius Valerianus might have met with too many Examples to have increased his Book De Literatorum Infoelicitate and in the next age it might have been true again what Matthew Paris observes of the Clergy in the Conquerours time adeò literaturâ carebant ut caeteris stupori esset qui Grammaticam didicâ—sset But blessed be God who hath freed us from that Daemonium meridianum of Ignorance and Barbarism may we be but as happily delivered from the plague of our divisions and animosities Than which there hath been no greater scandal to the Iews nor opprobrium of our Religion among Heathens and Mahumetans nor more common objection among the Papists nor any thing which hath been more made a pretence even for Atheism and Infidelity For our Controversies about Religion have brought at last even Religion it self into o Controversie among such whose weaker judgements have not been able to discern where the plain and unquestionable way to Heaven hath lain in so great a Mist as our Disputes have raised among us Weaker heads when they once see the battlements shake are apt to suspect that the foundation its self is not firm enough and to conclude if any thing be call'd in question that there is nothing certain And truly it cannot but be looked on as a sad presage of an approaching Famine not of bread but of the Word of the Lord that our lean Kine have devoured the fat and our thin ears the plump and full I mean our Controversies and Disputes have eaten so much out the Life and practice of Christianity Religion hath been so much rarified into aiery Notions and Speculations by the distempered heat of mens spirits that its inward strength and the Vitals of it have been much abated and consumed by it Curiosity that Green-sickness of the Soul whereby it longs for novelties and loaths sound and wholsome Truths hath been the Epidemical distemper of the Age we live in Of which it may be as truly said as ever yet of any that it was saecolum fâ—rtile religionis sterile pietatis I fear this will be the Character whereby our Age will be known to Posterity that it was the Age wherein men talked of Religion most and lived it least Few there are who are content with the Dimensum which God hath set them every one almost is of the Spanish Iesuâ—tes mind Beatus qui praedicat verbum inauditum seeking to find out somewhat whereby he may be reckoned if not among the Wise yet among the Disputers of this World How small is the number of those sober Christians of whom it may be said as Lucian of his Parasites 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 they were not at leisure to be sick of this pica 1 Tim. â— 4. such as longed more to taste of the Tree of Life then of the Tree of Knowledge and as Zenophon speaks of the Persians
us lyes not here as it is generally mistaken What Form of Government comes the nearest to Apostolical practice but Whether any one individual form be founded so upon Divine Right that all Ages and Churches are bound unalterably to observe it The clearing up of which by an impartial inquiry into all the grounds produced for it being of so great tendency to an accommodation of our present differences was the only motive which induced me to observe Aristotles wild Politicks of exposing this deformed conception to the entertainment of the wide World And certainly they who have espoused the most the interest of a jus divinum cannot yet but say that if the opinion I maintain be true it doth exceedingly conduce to a present settlement of the differences that are among us For then all parties may retain their different opinions concerning the Primitive form and yet agree and pitch upon a form compounded of all together as the most suitable to the state and condition of the Church of God among us That so the peoples interest be secured by consent and suffrage which is the pretence of the congregational way the due power of Presbyteries asserted by their joynt-concurrence with the Bishop as is laid down in that excellent model of the late incomparable Primate of Armagh and the just honour and dignity of the Bishop asserted as a very laudable and ancient constitution for preserving the Peace and Unity of the Church of God So the Learned Is. Casaubon describes the Polity of the Primitive Church Episcopi in singulis Ecclesiis constituti cum suis Prebyteriis propriam sibi quisque peculiari cura universam omnes in commune curantes admirabilis cujusdam Aristocraâ—iae speciem referebant My main design throughout this whole â—reatise is to shew that there can be no argument drawn from any pretence of a Divine Right that may hinder men from consenting and yielding to such a form of Government in the Church as may bear the greatest correspondency to the Primitive Church and be most advantagiously conduceable to the peace unity and settlement of our divided Church I plead not at all for any abuses or corruptions incident to the best form of Government through the corruption of men and times Nay I dare not harbour so low apprehensions of persons enjoying so great dignity and honour in the Church that they will in any wise be unwilling of themselves to reduce the Form of Church Government among us to its Primitive state and order by retrenching all Exorbitances of Power and restoring those Presbyteries which no law hath forbidden but onely through disuse have been laid aside Whereby they will give to the world that rare example of self-denial and the highest Christian prudence as may raise an honourable opinion of them even among those who have hitherto the most slighted so ancient and venerable an Order in the Church of God and thereby become the repairers of those otherwise irreparable breaches in the Church of God I conclude with the words of a late learned pious and moderate Prelate in his Via media I have done and now I make no other account but that it will fall out with me as it doth commonly with him that offers to part a fray both parts will perhaps drive at me for wishing them no worse than peace My ambition of the publike tranquillity shall willingly carry me through this hazzard let both beat me so their quarrel may cease I shall rejoyce in those blows and scars which I shall take for the Churches safety The Contents of the Chapters PART I. CHAP. I. THings necessary for the Churches peace must be clearly revealed The Form of Government not so as appears by the remaining controversie about it An evidence thence that Christ never intended any one Form as the only means to peace in the Church The Nature of a divine Right discussed Right in general either makes things lawful or else due For the former a non-prohibition sufficient the latter an express command Duty supposeth Legislation and promulgation The Question stated Nothing binds unalterably but by vertue of a standing Law and that two fold The Law of Nature and positive Lawes of God Three wayes to know when Positive Lawes are unalterable The Divine right arising from Scripture-examples divine acts and divine approbation considered p. 1. CHAP. II. SIX Hypotheses laid down as the basis of the following Discourse 1. The irreversible Obligation of the Law of Nature either by humane or divine positive Lawes in things immediately flowing from it 2. Things agreeable to the Law of nature may be lawfully practised in the Church of God inlarged into five subservient Propositions 3. Divine positive Lawes conâ—erning the manner of the thing whose substance is determined by the Law of nature must be obeyed by vertue of the obligation of the natural Law 4. Things undetermined both by the natural and positive laws of God may be lawfully determin'd by the supream authority in the Church of God The Magistrates power in matters of Religion largely asserted and cleared The nature of Indifferency in actions stated Matters of Christian liberty are subject to restraints largely proved Proposals for accommodation as to matters of Indifferency 5. What is thus determined by lawful authority doth bind the Consciences of men subject to that authority to obedience to those determinations 6. Things thus determined by lawful authority are not thereby made unalterable but may be revoked limited and changed by the same authority p. 27 CHAP. III. HOW far Church Government is founded upon the Law of nature Two things in it founded thereon 1. That there must be a Society of men for the Worship of God 2. That this Society be governed in the most convenient manner A Society for Worship manifested Gen 4. 26. considered The Sons of God and the sons of men who Societies for worship among Heathens evidenced by three things 1. Solemnity of Sacrifices sacrificing how far natural The antiquity of the Feast of first-fruits largely discovered 2. The Original of Festivals for the honour of their Deities 3. The sâ—crecy and solemnity of their mysteries This further proved from mans sociable nature the improvement of it by Religion the honour redounding to God by such a Society for his Worship p. 72 CHAP. IV. THE second thing the Law of Nature dictates that this Society be maintained and governed in the most convenient manner A further inquiry what particular Orders for Government in the Church come from the Law of Nature Six laid down and evidenced to be from thence First a distinction of some persons and their superiority over others both in power and order cleared to be from the Law of Nature The power and application of the power distinguished this latter not from any Law of Nature binding but permissive therefore may be restrained Peoples right of chosing Pastors considered Order distinguished from the form and manner of Government the former Natural the other not The
Government All Power in Christs hands for Governing the Church What order Christ took in order thereto when he was in the World Calling the Apostles the first action respecting outward Government Three steps of the Apostles calling to be Disciples in their first mission in their plenary Commission Several things observed upon them pertinent to our purpose The Name and Office of Apostles cleared An equality among them proved during our Saviours life Peter not made Monarch of the Church by Christ. The pleas for it answered The Apostles Power over the seventy Disciples considered with the nature and quality of their Office Matth. 20. 25 26. largely discussed and explained It excludes all civil power but makes not all inequality in Church-Officers unlawful by the difference of Apostles and Pastors of Churches Matth. 18. 15 16 17. fully inquired into No evidence for any one Form from thence because equally applyed to several What the offences are there spoken of What the Church spoken to Not an Ecclesiastical Sanhedrin among the Iews nor yet the civil Sanhedrin as Erastus and his followers explain it nor a Consistorial or Congregational Church under the Gospel but onely a select company for ending private differences among Christians p. 200 CHAP. VI. THe next and chief thing pleaded for determining the Form of Church-Government is Apostolical practice two things inquired into concerning that what it was how far it binds The Apostles invested with the power and authority of governing the whole Church of Christ by their Commission Iohn 20. 21. Matth. 28. 19. What the Apostles did in order to Church-Government before Pentecost 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 explained No division of Provinces made among the Apostles then made appear by several Arguments Whether Paul and Peter were conâ—ined one to the circumcision the other to the uncircumcision and different Churches erected by them in the same Cities What course the Apostles took in setling the Government of particular Churches Largely proved that they observed the customs of the Iewish Synagogue The model of the Synagogue Government described Whether peculiar Ordination for the Synagogue Officers The service of the Synagogue set forth with the Officers belonging to it Grounds proving that the Apostles copied forth the the Synagogue modell Community of names and customs between Iews and Christians then Forming Churches out of Synagogues Whether any distinct Coetus of Jewish and Gentile Christians in the same Cities Correspondency of the Church with the Synagogue in the orders of publick Service In the custome of Ordination Ierom explained The power of Ordination in whom it lodgeth in the Christian Church The opinions of Ierom and Aerins considered The name of Presbyters and Bishops explained Three general considerations touching Apostolical practice 1. That we cannot attain to such a certainty of Apostolical practice as thereon to ground a divine right The uncertainty of Apostolical practice as to us fully discovered 1. From the equivalency of the names which should determine the controversie 2. In that the places in controversie may without incongruity be understood of the different forms 3. From the defectiveness ambiguity partiality and repugnancy of the Records of Antiquity which should inform us what the Apostolical practice was These fully discoursed upon The testimonies of Eusebius Irenaeus Tertullian Hilary Ierom and Ignatius discussed and these two last proved not to contradict each other Episcopacy owned as a humane Instituiion by the sense of the Church 2. Consideration That in all probability the Apostles did not observe any one fixed course of settling Church Government but settled it according to the several circumstances of time places and persons Several things premised for clearing it This Opinion though seemingly New is proved at large to be most consonant to antiquity by the several Testimonies of Clemens Rom. Alexandrinus Epiphanius whose Testimony is corrected explained and vindicated Hilary and divers others This Opinion of great consequence towards our present peace No foundation for Lay-Elders either in Scripture or Antiquity 3. Consideration Meer Apostoliâ—al practice if supposed founds not any divine right proved by a fourfold Argument The right of Tithes resolved upon the same Principles with that of Church Government Rites and Institutions Apostolical grown quite out of use among the several contending parties p. 230. CHAP. VII THE Churches Polity in the ages after the Apostles considered Evidences thence that no certain unalterable Form of Church-Government was delivered to them 1. Because Church Power did inlarge as the Churches did Whether any Metropolitan Churches established by the Apostles Seven Churches of Asia whether Metropolitical Philippi no Metropolis either in Civil or Ecclesiastical sense Several degrees of inlargement of Churches Churches first the Christians in whole Cities proved by several arguments the Eulogiae an evidence of it Churches extended into the neighbour territories by the preaching there of City Presbyters thence comes the subordination between them Churches by degrees inlarged to Diocesses from thence to Provinces The Original of Metropolitans and Patriarches 2. No certain Form used in all Churches Some Churches without Bishops Scots Goths Some with but one Bishop in their whole Countrey Scythian Aethiopian Churches how governed Many Cities without Bishops Diocesses much altered Bishops discontinued in several Churches for many years 3. Conforming Ecclesiastical Government to the civil in the extent of Diocesses The suburbicarian Churches what Bishops answerable to the civil Governours Churches power rises from the greatness of Cities 4. Validity of Ordination by Presbyters in places where Bishops were The case of Ischyras discussed instances given of Ordination by Presbyters not pronounced null 5. The Churches prudence in managing its affairs by the several Canons Provincial Synods Codex Canonum p. 346 CHAP. VIII AN Inquiry into the Iudgement of Reformed Divines concerning the unalterable Divine Right of particular Forms of Church-Government wherein it is made appear that the most emine nt Divines of the Reformation did never conceive any one Form necessary manifested by three arguments 1. From the judgment of those who make the Form of Church-Government mutable and to depend upon the wisdom of the Magistrate and Church This cleared to have been the judgement of most Divines of the Church of England since the Reformation Archbishop Cranmers judgements with others of the Reformation in Edward the Sixth time now first published from his authentick MS. The same ground of setling Episcopacy in Queen Elizabeth's time The judgement of Archbishop Whitgift Bishop Bridges Dr. Loe Mr. Hooker largely to that purpose in King Iames his time The Kings own Opinion Dr. Sutâ—â—ffe Since of Grakanthorp Mr. Hales Mr. Chillingworth The Testimony of Forraign Divines to the same purpose Chemnitius Zanchy French Divines Peter Moulin Fregevil Blondel Bochartus Amyraldus Other learned men Grotius Lord Bacon c. 2. Those who look upon equality as the Primitive Form yet judge Episcopacy lawful Augâ—stane Confession Melanchthon Articuli Smalcaldici Prince of Anhalt Hyperius Hemingiâ—s The practice of most
Forraign Churches Calvin and Beza both approving Episcopacy and Diocesan Churches Salmatius c. 3 Those who judge Episcopacy to be the Primitive Form yet look not on it as necessary Bishop Iewel Fulk Field Bishop Downam Bishop Bancroft Bishop Morton Bishop Andrews Saravia Francis Mason and others The Conclusion hence laid in Order to Peace Principles conducing thereto 1. Prudence must be used in Church-Government at last confessed by all parties Independents in elective Synods and Church Covenants admission of Members number in Congregations Presbyterians in Classes and Synods Lay-Elders c. Episcopal in Diocesses Causes Rites c. 2. That Prudence best which comes nearest Primitive practice A Presidency for life over an Ecclesiastical Senate shewed to be that Form in order to it Presbyteries to be restored Diocesses lessened Provincial Synods kept twice a year The reasonableness and easiness of accommodation shewed The whole concluded p. 383. 384. A Weapon-Salve for the Churches Wounds OR The Divine Right of particular Forms of Government in the Church of God discussed and examined according to the Principles of the Law of Nature the Positive Laws of God the Practice of the Apostles and the Primitive Church and the Judgement of Reformed Divines PART I. CHAP. I. Things necessary for the Churches Peace must be clearly revealed The Form of Church-Government not so as appears by the remaining Controversie about it An Evidence thence that Christ never intended any one Form as the only means to Peace in the Church The Nature of a Divine Right discussed Right in general either makes things Lawful or else Due For the former a Non-prohibition sufficient the later an Express Command Duty supposeth Legislation and Promulgation The Question stated Nothing binds unalterably but by virtue of a standing Law and that two-fold The Law of Nature and Positive Laws of God Three ways to know when Positive Laws are unalterable The Divine Right arising from Scripture-Examples Divine Acts and Divine Approbation considered HE that imposeth any matter of Opinion upon the belief of others without giving Evidence of Reason for it proportionable to the confidence of his Assertion must either suppose the thing propounded to carry such unquestionable Credentials of Truth and Reason with it that none who know what they mean can deny it entertainment or else that his own understanding hath attained to so great perfection as to have authority sufficient to oblige all others to follow it This latter cannot be presumed among any who have asserted the freedom of their own understandings from the dictates of an Infallible Chair but if any should forget themselves so far as to think so there needs no other argument to prove them not to be Infallible in their Assertions then this one Assertion that they are infallible it being an undoubted Evidence that they are actually deceived who know so little the measure of their own understandings The former can never be pretended in any thing which is a matter of Controversie among men who have not wholly forgot they are Reasonable Creatures by their bringing probable arguments for the maintaining one part of an opinion as well as another In which case though the Arguments brought be not convincing for the necessary entertaining either part to an unbiassed understanding yet the difference of their Opinions is Argument sufficient that the thing contended for is not so clear as both parties would make it to be on their own side and if it be not a thing of necessity to salvation it gives men ground to think that a final decision of the matter in controversie was never intended as a necessary means for the Peace and Unity of the Church of God For we cannot with any shew of reason imagine that our Supreme Law giver and Saviour who hath made it a necessary duty in all true members of his Church to endeavour after the Peace and Unity of it should suspend the performance of that duty upon a matter of Opinion which when men have used their utmost endeavors to satisfie themselves about they yet find that those very grounds which they are most inclinable to build their Judgements upon are either wholly rejected by others as wise and able as themselves or else it may be they erect a far different Fabrick upon the very same foundations It is no ways consistent with the Wisdom of Christ in founding his Church and providing for the Peace and Settlement of it to leave it at the mercy of mens private judgments and apprehensions of things than which nothing more uncertain and thereby make it to depend upon a condition never like to be attained in this world which is the agreement and Uniformity of mens Opinions For as long as mens faces differ their judgements will And until there be an Intellectus Averroisticus the same understanding in all persons we have little ground to hope for such an Universal Harmony in the Intellectual World and yet even then the Soul might pass a different judgement upon the colours of things according to the different tincture of the several Optick-Glasses in particular bodies which it takes a prospect of things through Reason and Experience then give us little hopes of any peace in the Church if the unity of mens judgements be supposed the condition of it the next inquiry then is how the Peace of the Church shall be attained or preserved when men are under such different perswasions especially if they respect the means in order to a Peace and Settlement For the ways to Peace like the fertile soils of Greece have been oft-times the occasion of the greatest quarrels And no sickness is so dangerous as that when men are sick of their remedy and nauseate that most which tends to their recovery But while Physitians quarrel about the Method of Cure the Patient languisheth under their hands and when men increase Contentions in the behalf of Peace while they seem to Court it they destroy it The only way left for the Churches Settlement and Peace under such variety of apprehensions concerning the Means and Method in order to it is to pitch upon such a foundation if possible to be found out whereon the different Parties retaining their private apprehensions may yet be agreed to carry on the same work in common in order to the Peace and Tranquillity of the Church of God Which cannot be by leaving all absolutely to follow their own ways for that were to build a Babel instead of Salem Confusion instead of Peace it must be then by convincing men that neither of those ways to peace and order which they contend about is necessary by way of Divine Command though some be as a means to an end but which particular way or form it must be is wholly left to the prudence of those in whose Power and Trust it is to see the Peace of the Church be secured on lasting Foundations How neerly this concerns the present Debate about the Government of the Church any one
may quickly discern The main Plea for Forms of Government in the Church is their necessity in order to its Peace and Order and yet nothing hath produced more disorder and confusion then our Disputes about it have done And our sad experience still tells us that after all our Debates and the Evidences brought on either side men yet continue under very different apprehensions concerning it But if we more strictly enquire into the causes of the great Distances and Animosities which have risen upon this Controversie we shall find it hath not been so much the difference of Judgements concerning the Primitive Form of Government which hath divided men so much from one another as the prevalency of Faction and Interest in those whose Revenues have come from the Rents of the Church and among others of greater Integrity it hath been the Principle or Hypothesis which men are apt to take for granted without proving it viz. that it is in no case lawful to vary from that Form which by obscure and uncertain conjectures they conceive to have been the Primitive Practice For hereby men look upon themselves as obliged by an unalterable Law to endeavour the Establishment of that Idea of Government which oft-times Affection and Interest more then Reason and Judgement hath formed within them and so likewise bound to over throw any other Form not suitable to those Correspondencies which they are already engaged to maintain If this then were the Cause of the Wounds and Breaches this day among us the most successful Weapon-salve to heal them will be to anoint the Sword which hath given the Wound by a seasonable inquiry into the Nature and Obligation of particular Forms of Government in the Church The main Subject then of our present Debate will be Whether any one particular Form of Church Government be setled upon an unalterable Divine Right by virtue whereof all Churches are bound perpetually to observe that Individual Form or whether it be left to the Prudence of every particular Church to agree upon that Form of Government which it judgeth most conducible within its self to attain the end of Government the Peace Order Tranquillity and Settlement of the Church If this latter be made fully appear it is then evident that however mens judgements may differ concerning the Primitive Form of Government there is yet a sure ground for men to proceed on in order to the Churches Peace Which one Consideration will be motive sufficient to justifie an attempt of this Nature it being a Design of so great Importance as the recovery of an advantagious piece of ground whereon Different Parties may with safety not only treat but agree in order to a speedy Accommodation We come therefore closely to the business in hand and for the better clearing of our passage we shall first discuss the Nature of a Divine Right and shew whereon an unalterable Divine Right must be founded and then proceed to shew how far any Form of Government in the Church is setled upon such a Right Right in the general is a relative thing and the signification and import of it must be taken from the respect it bears to the Law which gives it For although in common acception it be often understood to be the same with the Law its self as it is the rule of actions in which sense Ius naturae gentium civile is taken for the several Laws of Nature Nations and particular States yet I say Ius and so Right is properly something accruing to a person by virtue of that Law which is made and so jus naturae is that right which every man is invested in by the Law of Nature which is properly jus personae and is by some call'd jus activum which is defined by Grotius to be Qualitas moralis personae competens ad aliquid juste habendum aut agendum by Lessius to be Potestas Legitima ad rem aliquam obtinendam c. So that by these descriptions Right is that Power which a man hath by Law to do have or obtain any thing But the most full description of it is given by Martinius that it is adhaerens personae necessitas vel potestas recta ad aliquid agendum omittendum aut permittendum that whereby any person lies under a necessity of doing omitting or suffering a thing to be or else hath a lawful authority of doing c. For we are to consider that there is a two-fold Right either such whereby a man hath Liberty and Freedom by the Law to do any thing or such whereby it becomes a mans necessary duty to do any thing The opening of the difference of these two and the different influences they have upon persons and things is very useful to our present purpose Ius then is first that which is justum so Isidore Ius dictum quia justum est So what ever is just men have right to do it Now a thing may be said to be just either more generally as it signifies any thing which is lawful or in a more restrained sense when it implies something that is equal and due to another So Aristotle distributes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 into 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The former sense of it is here only pertinent as it implies any thing which may be done according to Law that is done jure because a man hath right to do it In order to this we are to observe that an express Positive Command is not necessary to make a thing lawful but a non-prohibition by a Law is sufficient for that For it being the Nature of Laws to bound up mens Rights what is not forbidden by the Law is thereby supposed to be left in mens power still to do it So that it is to little purpose for men to seek for Positive Commands for every particular action to make it lawful it sufficeth to make any action lawful if there be no Bar made by any direct or consequential prohibition unless it be in such things whose lawfulness and goodness depend upon a meer Positive Command For in those things which are therefore only good because commanded a Command is necessary to make them lawful as in immediate positive acts of Worship towards God in which nothing is lawful any further then it is founded upon a Divine Command I speak not of Circumstances belonging to the Acts of Worship but whatever is looked upon as a part of Divine Worship if it be not commanded by God himself it is no ways acceptable to him and therefore not lawful So our Saviour cites that out of the Prophet In vain do they worship me teaching for Doctrines the commandments of men which the Chaldee Paraphrast and Syriack version render thus Reverentia quam mihi exhibent est ex praecepto documento humano plainly imputing the reason of Gods rejecting their worship to the want of a Divine Command for what they did And therefore Tertullian condemns all those things to be
before Covenants made and things thereby determined may be so far from being lawful after that the doing of them may contradict a Principle of the Obligatory Law of Nature Thus in a state of liberty every one had right to what he thought fit for his use but Propriety and Dominion being introduced which was a free voluntary act by mens determining Rights it now becomes an offence against the Law of Nature to take away that which is another mans In which sense alone it is that Theft is said to be forbidden by the Law of Nature And by the same reason he that resists and opposeth the lawful Authority under which he is born doth not only offend against the Municipal Laws of the place wherein he lives but against that Original and Fundamental Law of Societies viz standing to Covenants once made For it is a gross mistake as well as dangerous for men to imagine That every man is born in a state of Absolute Liberty to chuse what Laws and Governours he please but every one being now born a Subject to that Authority he lives under he is bound to preserve it as much as in him lies Thence Augustus had some reason to say He was the best Citizen qui praesentem reipublicae statum mutari â—â—â— vult That doth not disturb the present state of the Commonwealth and who as Alcibiades saith in Thucydides 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 endeavours to preserve that form of Government he was born under And the reason of it is that in Contracts and Covenants made for Government men look not only at themselves but at the benefit of Posterity if then one Party be bound to maintain the Rights of the others Posterity as well as of his person the other party must be supposed to oblige his Posterity in his Covenant to perform Obedience which every man hath power to do because Children are at their Parents disposal And Equity requires that the Covenant entred should be of equal extent to both parties And if a man doth expect Protection for his Posterity he must engage for the Obedience of his Posterity too to the Governorâ— who do legally protect them But the further prosecution of these things belongs to another place to consider of my purpose being to treat of Government in the Church and not in the State The sum of this is that the Obligation to the performance of what things are determined which are of the permissive Law of Nature by Positive Laws doth arise from the Obligatory Law of Nature As the Demonstration of the particular Problemes in the Mathematicks doth depend upon the Principles of the Theoremes themselves and so whoever denies the truth of the Probleme deduced by just Consequence from the Theoreme must consequentially deny the truth of the Theoreme its self So those who violate the particular Determinations of the Permissive Law of Nature do violate the Obligation of the Preceptive part of that Law Obedience to the other being grounded on the Principles of this 4. God hath Power by his Positive Laws to take in and determine as much of the Permissive Law of Nature as he please which being once so determined by an Universal Law is so far from being lawful to be done that the doing of them by those under an Obligation to his Positive Laws is an offence against the Immutable Law of Nature That God may restrain mans Natural Liberty I suppose none who own Gods Legislative Power over the world can deny especially considering that men have power to restrain themselves much more then hath God who is the Rector and Governor of the World That a breach of his positive Laws is an offence against the common Law of Nature appears hence because man being Gods creature is not only bound to do what is in general suitable to the principles of reason in flying evil and choosing good but to submit to the determinations of Gods will as to the distinction of good from evil For being bound universally to obey God it is implyed that man should obey him in all things which he discovers to be his will whose determination must make a thing not only good but necessary to be done by vertue of his supreme authority over men This then needs no further proof being so clear in its self 5. Lastly What things are left undetermined by divine positive Laws are in the Churches power to use and practise according as it judgeth them most agreeable to the rule of the Word That things undetermin'd by the Word are still lawfull evidently appears because what was once lawfull must have some positive Law to make it unlawfull which if there be none it remains lawfull still And that the Church of God should be debarr'd of any priviledge of any other Societies I understand not especially if it belong to it as a Society considered in its self and not as a particular Society constituted upon such accounts as the Church is For I doubt not but to make it evident afterwards that many parts of Government in the Church belong not to it as such in a restrained sense but in the general notion of it as a Society of men imbodyed together by some Laws proper to its self Although it subsist upon a higher foundation viz. of divine institution and upon higher grounds reasons principles ends and be directed by other Laws immediately then any other Societies in the World are The third Hypothesis is this Where the Law of Nature determines the thing and the Divine Law determines the manner and circumstances of the thing there we are bound to obey the divine Law in its particular determinations by vertue of the Law of Nature in its general obligation As for instance the Law of Nature bindeth man to worship God but for the way manner and circumstances of Worship we are to follow the positive Laws of God because as we are bound by Nature to worship him so we are bound by vertue of the same Law to worship him in the manner best pleasing to himself For the light of Nature though it determine the duty of worship yet it doth not the way and manner and though acts of pure obedience be in themselves acceptable unto God yet as to the manner of those acts and the positives of worship they are no further acceptable unto God then commanded by him Because in things not necessarily determined by the Law of Nature the goodnesse or evill of them lying in reference to Gods acceptance it must depend upon his Command supposing positive Laws to be at all given by God to direct men in their worship of him For supposing God had not at all revealed himself in order to his worship doubtlesse it had been lawfull for men not only to pray to God express their sense of their dependance upon him but to appoint waies times and places for the doing it as they should judge most convenient agreeable to natural light Which is evident from the
of the Magistrate though he is not subject to the power of the Ministers yet both as a Christian and as a Magistrate he is subject to the Word of God and is to be guided by that in the Administration of his Function So on the other side in a Minister of the Gospel there are these things considerable the Object of his Function the Function its self the Liberty of exercising it and the Person who doth exercise it As for the Object of this Function the Word and Sacraments these are not subject to the Civil Power being setled by a Law of Christ but then for the Function its self that may be considered either in the Derivation of it or in the Administration of it As for the derivation of the power and authority of the Function that is from Christ who hath setled and provided by Law that there shall be such a standing Function to the end of the world with such authority belonging to it But for the Administration of the Function two things belong to the Magistrate First to provide and take care for due administration of it anâ— to see that the Ministers preach the true Doctrine though he cannot lawfully forbid the true Doctrine to be taught and that they duly administer the Sacraments though he cannot command them to administer them otherwise then Christ hath delivered them down to us This for due Administration Secondly in case of male-administration of his Function or scandal rendring him unfit for it it is in the Magistrates power if not formally to depose yet to deprive them of the liberty of ever exercising their Function within his Dominions as Solomâ—n did Abiathar and Iustinian Sylverius as Constantius did Vigilius For the liberty of exercise of the Function is in the Magistrates power though a right to exercise it be derived from the same power from which the Authority belonging to the Function was conveyed And then lastly as to the persons exercising this Function it is evident As they are members of a Civil Society as well as others so they are subject to the same Civil Laws as others are Which as it is expresly affirmed by Chrysostom on Rom. 13. 1. Let every Soul be subject to the Higher Powers that is saith he 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Be he an Apostle Evangelist Prophet Priest Monk be he who he will So it is fully largely irrefragably proved by our Writers against the Papists especially by the learned Is. Casaubon in his piece de libertate Ecclesiasticâ So then we see what a fair amicable and mutual aspect these two powers have one upon another when rightly understood being far from clashing one with the other either by a subjection of the Civil Power to the Ecclesiastical or the Civil powers swallowing up and devouring the peculiarity of the Ministerial Function And upon these grounds I suppose Beza and Erastus may as to this shake hands So that the Magistrate do not usurp the Ministerial Function which Videlius calls Papatus politicus nor the Ministers subject the Civil power to them which is Papatus Ecclesiasticus Thirdly we distinguish between an absolute Architectonical and Nomothetical Power independent upon any other Law and a Legislative Power absolute as to persons but regulated by a Higher Law The former we attribute to none but God the latter belongs to a Supreme Magistrate in reference to things belonging to his power either in Church or Commonwealth By an Architectonical Nomothetical Power we mean that power which is distinguished from that which is properly call'd Political The former lies in the making Laws for the good of the Commonwealth the latter in a due execution and administration of those Laws for the Common Good This we have asserted to the Magistrate already We now come to assert the other where we shall first set down the bounds of this power and then see to whom it belongs First then we say not that the Magistrate hath a power to revoke repâ—al or alter any Divine positive Law which we have already shewn Secondly we say not that the Magistrate by his own will may constitute what new Laws he please for the Worship of God This was the fault of Ieroboam who made Israel to sin and therefore by the Rule of Reason must be supposed to sin more himself So likewise Ahab Ahaz and others Religion is a thing setled by a Divine Law and as it is taken for the Doctrine and Worship of God so it is contained in the Word of God and must be fetched wholly from thence But then thirdly The Magistrate by his power may make that which is a Divine Law already become the Law of the Land Thus Religion may be incorporated among our Laws and the Bible become our Magna Charta So the first Law in the Codex Theod. is about the believing the Trinity and many others about Religion are inserted into it Now as to these things clearly revealed in the Word of God and withall commanded by the Civil Magistrate although the primary obligation to the doing them is from the former determination by a Divine Law yet the Sanction of them by the Civil Magistrate may cause a further obligation upon Conscience then was before and may add punishments and rewards not expressed before For although when two Laws are contrary the one to the other the obligation to the Higher Law takes away the obligation to the other yet when they are of the same Nature or subordinate one to the other there may a New Obligation arise from the same Law enacted by a New Authority As the Commands of the Decalogue brought a New Obligation upon the Consciences of the Jews though the things contained in them were commanded before in the Law of Nature And as a Vow made by a man adds a new â—ye to his Conscience when the matter of his Vow is the same with what the Word of God commands and renewing our Covenant with God after Baptism renews our Obligation So when the Faith of the Gospel becomes the Law of a Nation men are bound by a double Cord of duty to entertain and profess that Faith Fourthly in matters undetermined by the Word concerning the External Polity of the Church of God the Magistrate hath the power of determining things so they be agreeable to the Word of God This last Clause is that which binds the Magistrates power that it is not absolutely Architectonicall because all his Laws must be regulated by the generall rules of the Divine Law But though it be not as to Laws yet I say it is as to persons that is that no other persons have any power to make Laws binding men to obedience but only the civil Magistrate This is another part of the Controversie between the Civil and Ecclesiastical Power about the power of determining matters belonging to the Churches Government But there is here no such breach between those two but what may be made up with a distinction or
them in particular but to the Magistrate in general So that in things left lawfull and undetermin'd by the Word where there ariseth no obligation from the matter it must arise from our subjection and relation to the Magistrate and what is the ground of obedience is the cause of the obligation Secondly He hath only the power of obligations who hath the power of making Sanctions to those Laws By Sanctions I mean here in the sense of the civil Law eas legum partes quibus poenas constituimus adversus eos qui contra leges fecerint those parts of the Law which determine the punishments of the violaters of it Now it is evident that he only hath power to oblige who hath power to punish upon disobedience And it is as evident that none hath power to punish but the civill Magistrate I speak of legall penalties which are annexed to such Laws as concern the Church Now there being no coercive or coactive power belonging to the Church as such all the force of such Laws as respect the outward Polity of the Church must be derived from the civill Magistrate Thirdly He who can null and declare all other obligations void done without his power hath the only power to oblige For whatsoever destroys a former obligation must of necessity imply a power to oblige because I am bound to obey him in the abstaining from that I was formerly obliged to But this power belongs to the Magistrate For suppose in some indifferent Rites and Ceremonies the Church representative that is the Governors of it pro tempore do prescribe them to be observed by all the Supreme power fâ—rbids the doing of those things if this doth not null the former supposed obligation I must inevitably run upon these absurdities First that there are two supreme powers in a Nation at the same time Secondly that a man may lie under two different Obligations as to the same thing he is bound to do it by one power and not to do it by the other Thirdly the same action may be a duty and a sin a duty in obeying the one power a sin in disobeying the other Therefore there can be but one power to oblige which is that of the Supreme Magistrate Having thus far asserted the Magistrates due power and Authority as to matters of Religion we proceed to examine the extent of this power in determining things left at liberty by the Word of God in order to the Peace and Government of the Church For our clear and distinct proceeding I shall ascend by these three steps First to shew that there are some things left undetermined by the Word Secondly that these things are capable of positive Determinations and Restraint Thirdly that there are some bounds and limits to be observed in the stating and determining these things First That there are some things left undetermined by the Word By Determining here I do not mean determining whether things be lawful or no for so there is no Ritâ— or Ceremony whatsoever but is determined by the Scripture in that sense or may be gathered from the application of particular actions to the general Rules of Scripture but by Determining I mean whether all things concerning the Churches Polity and Order be determined as Duties or no viz. that this we are bound to observe and the other not As for instance what time manner method gesture habit be used in preaching the Word whether Baptism must be by dipping or sprinkling at what day time place the Child shall be baptized and other things of a like Nature with these Those who assert any of these as duties must produce necessarily the Command making them to be so For Duty and Command have a necessary respect and relation to one another If no Command be brought it necessarily follows that they are left at liberty So as to the Lords Supper Calvin saith whether the Communicants take the Bread themselves or receive it being given them whether they should give the Cup into the hands of the Deacon or to their next Neighbour whether the Bread be leavened or not the Wine red or white nihil refert it matters not Haec indifferentia sunt in Ecclesiae libertate posita they are matters of indifferency and are left to the Churches liberty But this matter of Indifferency is not yet so clear as it is generally thought to be we shall therefore bare the ground a little by some necessary distinctions to see where the root of indifferency lies Which we shall the rather do because it is strongly asserted by an Honourable person that there is no Indifferency in the things themselves which are still either unlawful or necessary if lawful at this time in these circumstances but all indifferency lies in the darkness and shortness of our understandings which may make some things seem so to us But that Honourable person clearly runs upon a double mistake First that Indifferency is a medium participationis of both extremes and not only negationis viz. that as intermediate colours partake both of black and white and yet are neither so in morality between good and bad there is an intermediate entity which is neither but indifferent to either Whereas the Nature of Indifferency lies not in any thing intermediate between good and bad but in some thing undetermined by Divine Laws as to the necessity of it so that if we speak as to the extremes of it it is something lying between a necessary duty and an intrinsecal evil The other mistake is that throughout that Discourse he takes Indifferency as Circumstantiated in Individual actions and as the morality of the action is determined by its Circumstances whereas the proper notion of Indifferency lies in the Nature of the action considered in its self abstractly and so these things are implyed in an indifferent action First absolute undetermination as to the general nature of the act by a Divine Law that God hath left it free for men to do it or no. Secondly that one part hath not more propension to the Rule then the other for if the doing of it comes nearer to the rule then the omission or on the contrary this action is not wholly indifferent Thirdly that neither part hath any repugnancy to the Rule for that which hath so is so far from being indifferent that it becomes unlawful So that an indifferent action is therein like the Iron accosted by two Loadstones on either side of equal virtue and so hovers in medio inclining to neither but supposing any degree of virtue added to the one above the other it then inclines towards it or as the Magnetical Needle about the Azores keeps its self directly parallel to the Axis of the world without variation because it is supposed then to be at an equal distance from the two Great Magnets the Continents of Europe and America But no sooner is it removed from thence but it hath its variations So indifferency taken in
specie as to the Nature of the act inclines neither way but supposing it lye under Positive Determinations either by Laws or Circumstances it then necessarily inclines either to the Nature of Good or Eâ—il Neither yet are we come to a full understanding of the Nature of indifferent actions we must therefore distinguish between indifferency as to goodness necessitating an action to be done and as to goodness necessary to an action to make it good For there is one kind of goodness propter quam fit actio in order to which the action must necessarily be done and there is another kind of goodness sine quâ non benè fit actio necessary to make an action good when it is done As following after peace hath such a goodness in it as necessitates the action and makes it a necessary duty but handling a particular Controversie is such an action as a man may let alone without sin in his course of studies yet when he doth it there is a goodness necessary to make his doing it a good action viz. his referring his study of it to a right end for the obtaining of truth and peace This latter goodness is twofold either bonitas directionis as some call it which is referring the action to its true end in reference to which the great Controversie among the Schoolmen is about the indifferency of particular actions viz. Whether a particular direction of a mans intention to the ultimate end be not so necessary to particular actions as that without that the action is of necessity evil and with it good or whether without that an action may be indifferent to good or evil which is the state of the Question between Thomas and Scotus Bonaventure and Durandus but we assert the necessity of at least an habitual direction to make the action in individuo good and yet the act in its self may notwithstanding be indifferent even in individuo as there is no antecedent necessity lying upon mens Consciences for the doing of it because men may omit it and break no Law of God Besides this to make an action good there is necessary a bonitas Originis or rather Principii â—â— good Principle out of which the action must flow which must be that Faith which whatsoever is not of is sin as the Apostle tells us Which we must not so understand as though in every action a man goes about he must have a full perswasion that it is a necessary duty he goes about but in many actions that Faith is sufficient whereby he is perswaded upon good ground that the thing he goes about is lawful although he may as lawfully omit that action and do either another or the contrary to it There may be then the necessity of some things in an action when it is done to make it good and yet the action its self be no ways necessary but indifferent and a matter of Liberty This may be easily understood by what is usually said of Gods particular Actions that God is free in himself either to do or not to do that action as suppose the Creation of the World but when he doth it he must necessarily do it with that goodness holiness and wisdom which is suitable to his Nature So may many actions of men be in themselves indifferent and yet there must be a concomitant necessity of good intention and Principle to make the action good But this concomitant necessity doth not destroy the Radical Indifferency of the action it self it is only an antecedent necessity from the obligation of the Law is that which destroys indifferency So likewise it is as to evil there is such an evil in an action which not only spoils the action but hinders the person from the liberty of doing it that is in all such actions as are intrinsecally evil and there is such a kind of evil in actions which though it spoils the goodness of the action yet keeps not from performance which is such as ariseth from the manner of performance as praying in hypocrisie c. doing a thing lawful with a scrupulous or erring Conscience We see then what good and evil is consistent with indifferency in actions and what is not And that the Nature of Actions even in individuo may be indifferent when as to their Circumstances they may be necessarily determin'd to be either good or evil As Marrying or not Marrying as to the Law of God is left at liberty not making it in its self a necessary duty one way or other but supposing particular Circumstances make it necessary pro hîc nunc yet the Nature of it remains indifferent stâ—ll and supposing Marriage it is necessary it should be in the Lord and yet it is not necessary to make choice of this person rather then of that so that not only the absolute indifferency of the action is consistent with this concomitant necessity but the full liberty both of contradiction and contrariety Again we must distinguish between an Indifferency as to its Nature and Indifferency as to its use and end or between an indifferency as to a Law and indifferency as to order and peace Here I say that in things wholly indifferent in both respects that is in a thing neither commanded nor forbidden by God nor that hath any apparent respect to the Peace and Order of the Church of God there can be no rational account given why the Nature of such indifferencies should be alter'd by any Humane Laws and Constitutions But matters that are only indifferent as to a Command but are much conducing to the Peace and Order of a Church such things as these are the proper matter of Humane Constitutions concerning the Churches Polity Or rather to keep to the words of the Hypothesis it self where any things are determin'd in general by the Word of God but left at Liberty as to manner and Circumstances it is in the power of Lawful Authority in the Church of God to determine such things as far as they tend to the promoting the good of the Church And so I rise to the second step which is That matters of this Nature may be determin'd and restrained Or that there is no necessity that all matters of Liberty should remain in their primary indifferency This I know is asserted by some of great Note and Learning that in things which God hath left to our Christian Liberty man may not restrain us of it by subjecting those things to Positive Laws but I come to examine with what strength of reason this is said that so we may see whether men may not yield in some lawful things to a restraint of their Christian Liberty in order to the Peace of the Church of God Which I now prove by these Arguments First What may be lawfully done when it is commanded may be so far lawfully commanded as it is a thing in it self lawful but matters of Christian Liberty may be lawfully done when they are commanded to be done
though it were lawful not to do them before that Command The truth of the Proposition appears because Lawful Authority may command any thing that may be lawfully done Because nothing can exempt from obedience to a lawful Magistrate but the unlawfulness of the thing commanded and therefore nothing can debar the Magistrate from commanding these things for nothing can hinder him from Commanding but what may hinder the Subject from Obedience I grant in many cases it may be lawful to obey when it is very inconvenient for the Magistrate to command but inconveniency and unlawfulness are two things nay and in some cases a man may lawfully obey when he is unlawfully commanded but then the matter of the Command it self is unlawful As in executing an unjust Sentence granting that a Princes Servants may lawfully do it especially when they know it not yet in that case the ground of their lawful obedience is the ground of the Magistrates lawful Command which is the supposed Justice of the Execution But that which makes the Magistrates Command unlawful is the intrinsecal evil of the thing its self So for unlawful Wars though the Subjects may lawfully obey yet the Prince sins in commanding not but that he hath right to command so far as they are bound to obey which is only in things lawful but that which in this case alters the matter is the Princes knowing his cause to be unjust So that however the Proposition holds in things not manifestly unjust But however this be it is hereby granted that the things may be lawfully done when they are restrained by the Magistrates Command and by that it appears that liberty may be restrained else it could not be lawful to act under that restraint not as it respects the things themselves but under that formality as they are the restraint of that which ought to be left free The Restraint however then is lawful as to the persons acting under Authority who are the Subjects of this liberty though it were granted unlawfull as to the authority doing it Which former is sufficient for my purpose viz. that Christian liberty as to the subjects of it may be lawfully restrained Secondly A lesser duty ceaseth to be a duty when it hinders from the performance of greater but the preserving Christian liberty is a lesser duty which may hinder the peace of the Church which is a greater therefore in that case it may be restrained The Major is granted by Divines and Casuists when duties stand in competition the lesser ceaseth to bind as is evident in that God will have mercy rather then sacrifice Positives yield to morals and naturals Thence the obligation of an Oath ceaseth when it hinders from a natural duty as the Corban among the Jews from relief of Parents And therefore Grotius saith that an Oath taken concerning a thing lawfull if it doth hinder majus bonum morale the obligation of that Oath ceaseth Now that preserving-liberty is a lesser duty then the looking after the peace of the Church is evident because the one is only a matter of liberty and left undetermin'd by the Word and the other a matter of necessity and absolutely and expresly required of all as a duty as much as possibly lyes in them to endeavour after Thirdly If an occasional offence of weaker Brethren may be a ground for restraining Christian liberty then much more may commands from lawfull authority do it but the offence of weaker Brethren may restrain Christian liberty as to the exercise of it as appears by the Apostles discourse Rom. 14. 21. The reason of the consequence lies here that a case of meer offence which is here pleaded towards weak Brethren cannot have that obligation upon Conscience which a known duty of obeying lawfull Authority in things in themselves lawfull hath Nay further insisting only on the Law of scandall I would fain know whether it be a greater offence and scandall to Christians consciences to infringe the lawfull authority of the Magistrate and to deny obedience to his commands in things undetermin'd by the Law of God or else to offend the Consciences that is go against the judgements of some well-meaning but less-knowing Christians Or thus whether in the matter of scandall it be a greater offence to go against the judgements of the weaker and more ignorant or the more knowing and able when the one have only their own weak apprehension to byasse them the other are backed by and grounded upon an established Law And whether it be not a greater scandall to Religion to disobey a Christian Magistrate then it is to offend some private Christians Let these things be examined and then let us see whether the argument will not hold à majori if the Law of scandall as to private Christians may restrain liberty then may a command from the Magistrate do it Fourthly I argue thus If the nature of Christian-liberty may be preserved under the restraint of the exercise of it then it is not against the nature of Christian-liberty to have the exercise restrained but the former is true and therefore the latter Now that the nature of Christian-liberty may be preserved under the restraint of its exercise I prove by these arguments First Because the nature of Christian-liberty is founded upon the freedom of judgement and not the freedom of practice The case is the same in moral and natural liberty as in Christian. Now we say truly that the radical liberty of the soul is preserved though it be determined to a particular action For the liberty of the Will lying in the power of determining its self either way as it is generally thought the actuall determination of the Will doth not take away the internal power in the soul and in that respect there may be a potentia faciendi where there is not possibilit as effectûs a power of doing when there is no possibility the thing should be done when the event is otherwise determined by a divine decree as in breaking the bones of Christ upon the Crosse. So it is in reference to Christian liberty though the exercise of it be restrained yet the liberty remains because Christian-liberty lyes in the freedom of judgement that is in judging those things to be free which are so so that if any thing that is in its self free be done by a man with an opinion of the necessity of doing it antecedent to the Law commanding it or without any Law prescribing it thereby his Christian liberty is destroyed but if it be done with an opinion of the freedom and indifferency of the thing it self but only with a consequential necessity of doing it supposing the Magistrates command he retains the power of his Christian-liberty still though under the restraint of the exercise of it And therefore it would be well observed that the opinion of the necessity of any one thing undetermined by Scripture destroys Christian-liberty more then a Magistrates command doth And by this
reason they that hold any one posture at receiving the Lords Supper necessary as sitting leaning kneeling do all equally destroy their own Christian-liberty as to these things which are undetermined by the Word So a Magistrate when commanding matters of Christian-liberty if in the preface to the Law he declares the thing necessary to be done in its self and therefore he commands it he takes away as much as in him lyes our Christian-liberty And in that case we ought to hold to that excellent Rule of the Apostle Stand fast therefore in the liberty wherewith Christ hath set you free and be not intangled again with the yoke of bondage But if the Magistrate declare the things to be in themselves indifferent but only upon some prudent considerations for peace and order he requires persons to observe them though this brings a necessity of obedience to us yet it takes not away our Christian-liberty For an antecedent necessity expressed in the Law as a learned and excellent Casuist of our own observes doth not necessarily require the assent of the practical judgement to it which takes away our liberty of judgement or our judgement of the liberty of the things but a consequentiall necessity upon a command supposed doth only imply an act of the Will whereby the freedom of judgement and conscience remaining it is inclined to obedience to the commands of a superior Law Now that liberty doth lye in the freedom of Judgement and not in the freedom of Practise and so is consistent with the restraint of the exercise of it appears both in the former case of scandall and in the actions of the Apostles and primitive Christians complying with the Jews in matters of liberty yea which is a great deal more in such ceremonies of which the Apostle expresly saith that if they observed them Christ would profit them Nothing and yet we find Paul himself circumcising Timothy because of the Jews Certainly then however these ceremonies are supposed to be not only mortuae but mortiferae now the Gospel was preached and the Law of Christian-liberty promulged yet Paul did not look upon it as the taking away his liberty at any time when it would prevent scandall among the Jews and tend to the furtherance of the Gospel to use any of them It was therefore the opinion of the necessity of them was it which destroyed Christian-liberty and therefore it is observable that where the opinion of the necessity of observing the Judaicall Rites and Ceremonies was entertained the Apostle sets himself with his whole strength to oppose them as he doth in his Epistles to the Galatians and Colossians Whom yet we find in other places and to other Churches not leaven'd with this doctrine of the necessity of Judaicall Rites very ready to comply with weak Brethren as in his Epistles to the Romans and Corinthians From which we plainly see that it was not the bare doing of the things but the doing them with an opinion of the necessity of them is that which infringeth Christian-liberty and not the determination of one part above the other by the Supream Magistrate when it is declared not to be for any opinion of the things themselves as necessary but to be only in order to the Churches peace and unity Secondly It appears that Liberty is consistent with the restraint of the exercise of it because the very power of restraining the exercise of it doth suppose it to be a matter of liberty and that both antecedently and consequentially to that restraint Antecedently so it is apparent to be a matter of liberty else it was not capable of being restrained Consequentially in that the ground of observance of those things when restrained is not any necessity of the matter or the things themselves but only the necessity of obeying the Magistrate in things lawfull and undertermin'd by the Word which leads to another argument Thirdly Mens obligation to these things as to the ground of it being only in point of contempt and scandall argues that the things are matter of liberty still I grant the Magistrates authority is the ground of obedience but the ground of the Magistrates command is only in point of contempt and scandall and for preserving order in the Church For I have already shewed it to be unlawfull either to command or obey in reference to these things from any opinion of the necessity of them and therefore the only ground of observing them is to shew that we are not guilty of contempt of the power commanding them nor of scandall to others that are offended at our not observing them Tota igitur religio est in fugiendo scandalo vitando contemptu saith our learned Whitaker All our ground of obedience is the avoiding scandall and contempt of authority To the same purpose Pet. Martyr speaking of the obligation of Ecclesiasticall Laws Non obstringunt si removeatur contemptus scandalum So that non-observance of indifferent things commanded when there there is no apparent contempt or scandall do not involve a man in the guilt of sin as suppose a Law made that all publike prayer be performed kneeling if any thing lies in a mans way to hinder him from that posture in this case the man offends not because there is no contempt or scandall So if a Law were made that all should receive the Lords Supper fasting if a mans health calls for somwhat to refresh him before he sins not in the breach of that Law And therefore it is observable which Whitaker takes notice of in the Canons of the Councils of the primitive Church that though they did determine many things belonging to the externall Polity of the Church yet they observed this difference in their Censures or Anathema's That in matteâ—s of meer order and decency they never pronounced an Anathema but with the supposition of â—ppâ—rent contempt and inserted Si quis contrà praesumpserit si quis contumaciter contrà fecerit but in matters of Doctrine or Life fully determin'd by the Law of God they pronounced a simple Anathema without any such clause inserted Now from this we may take notice of a difference between Laws concerning indifferencies in civill and Ecclesiastical matters That in civils the Laws bind to indifferencies without the case of contempt or scandall because in these the publike good is aimed aâ— of which every private person is not fit to judge and therefore it is our duty either to obey or suffer but in Ecclesiasticall constitution only peace and order is that which is looked at and therefore Si nihil contra 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 feceris non teneris illis is the rule here If nothing tending to apparent disorder be done men break not those Laws For the end and reason of a Law is the measure of its obligation Fourthly Mens being left free to do the things forbidden either upon a repeal of the former Laws or when a man is from under
highest reason and equity for since none can have command immediately over Conscience but God himself and what ever is imposed as necessary doth immediately bind Conscience And whatever binds mens conscienceâ— with an opinion of the necessity of it doth immediately destroy that Christian-liberty which men are necessarily bound to stand fast in and not be intangled with any yoke of bondage Not only the yoke of Jewish Ceremonies but whatever yoke pincheth and galls as that did with an opinion of the necessity of doing the thing commanded by any but the Word of God Which the Apostle calls Dogmatizing Coloss. 2. 20 and v. 16. Let no man judge you in meat and drink nè Praepositi quidem vestri saith Whitaker these impositions he calls v. 22. the commandments and doctrines of men And such he calls a Snare 1 Corinth 7. 23. which was the making an indifferent thing as Coelibate necessary Laqueus est quicquid praecipitur ut necessarium quod liberum esse debet So that though obedience be necessary to indâ—fferent things when commanded yet it must alwayes be liber â conscientiâ quoad res ipsas legum no obligation to be laid upon Conscience to look upon the things as necessary Secondly That nothing be required nor determin'd but what is sufficiently known to be indifferent in its own nature The former proposall was in reference to the manner of imposing this respects the nature of the things themselves The only difficulty here is How a thing may be sufficiently known to be indifferent because one man looks upon that as indifferent which another doth not The most equal way to decide this Controversie is to make choyce of such Judges as are not interested in the quarrel And those are the sense of the Primitive Church in the first 4 Centuries who were best able to judge whether they looked upon themselves as bound by any command of Scripture or no and withall the Judgement of the Reformed Churches So that what shall be made appear to be left indifferent by both the sense of the Primitive Church and the Churches of the Reformation may be a matter determinable by Law and which all may be required to conform in obedience to Thirdly That whatever is thus determined be in order only to a due performance of what is in general required in the Word of God and not to be looked on as any part of Divine Worship or Service This is that which gives the greatest occasion of offence to mens Consciences when any thing is either required or if not yet generally used and looked on as a necessary part or concomitant of Gods Worship so that without it the Worship is deemed imperfect And there is great difference to be made between things indifferent in their own nature and indifferent as to their use and practise And when the generality of those who use them do not use them as Indifferent but as necessary things it ought to be considered whether in this case such a use be allowable till men be better informed of the nature of the things they do As in the case of the Papists about Image-worship their Divines say that the Images are only as high teners of Devotion but the worship is fixed on God but we find it is quite otherwise in the general practâ—se of people who look at nothing beyond the Image So it may be bating the degrees of the offence when matters of indifferency in themselves are by the generality of people not looked on as such but used as a necessary part of divine Service And it would be considered whether such an abuse of matters supposed indifferent being known it be not scandalum datum to continue their use without an effectual remedy for the abuse of them Fourthly That no Sanctions be made nor mulcts or penalties be inflicted on such who only dissent from the use of some things whose lawfulnesse they at present scruple till sufficient time and means be used for their information of the nature and indifferency of the things that it may be seen whether it be out of wilfull contempt and obstinacy of spirit or only weaknesse of Conscience and dissatisfaction concerning the things themselves that they disobey And if it be made evident to be out of contempt that only such penalties be inflicted as answers to the nature of the offence I am sure it is contrary to the Primitive practise and the Moderation then used to suspend or deprive men of their ministerial function for not conforming in Habits Gestures or the like Concerning Habits Walafridus Strabo expresly tells us There was no distinction of Habits used in the Church in the Primitive times Vestes sacerdotales per incrementa ad eum qui nunc habetur aucta sunt ornatum Nam primis temporibus communi vestimento induti Missas agebant sicut hactenus quidam Orientalium facere perhibentur And therefore the Concilium Gangrense condemned Eustathius Sebastenus for making a necessity of diversity of habits among Christians for their profession 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 it being acknowledged both by Salma sius and his great Adversary Petavius that in the Primitive times the Presbyters did not necessarily wear any distinct habit from the people although the former endeavours to prove that commonly they did in Tertullians time but yet that not all the Presbyters nor they only did use a distinct habit viz. the Pallium Philosophicum but all the Christians who did 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as Socrates said of Sylvanus Rhetâ—r all that were 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 among them stricter Professors of Christianity among which most of the Presbyters were And Origen in Eusebius expresly speaks of Heraclas a Presbyter of Alexandria that for a long time 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 he used only the common Garment belonging to Christians and put on the Pallium Philosophicum for the study of the Grecian Learning after that Christianity began to lose in height what it got in breadth instead of the former simplicity of their garments as well as manners and their 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 came in the use of the byrri Penulae Dalmaticae and so daily increasing as Strabo saith I say not this in the least to condemn any distinction of habit for meer decency and order but to shew it was not the custome of the Primitive times to impose any necessity of these things upon men nor to censure them for bare disuse of them He must be a great stranger in the Primitive Church that takes not notice of the great diversity of Rites and Customs used in particular Churches without any censuring those who differed from them or if any by inconsiderate zeal did proceed so far how ill it was resented by other Christians As Victor's excommunicating the Quarto-decimani for which he is so sharply reproved by Irenaeus who tells him that the Primitive Christians who differed in such things did not use to abstain from one anothers communion for them 〈◊〉
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as Socrates tells us Those that agree in the same Faith may differ among themselves in their Rites and Customs as he largely shews in a whole Chapter to that purpose as in the observation of Easter some on the fourteenth day of April others only upon the Lords Day but some of the more Eastern Churches differed from both In their Fasts some observed Lent but for one day some two some three weeks some six weeks other seven and in their Fasts some abstained from all kind of living creatures others only from fresh eating fish and others â—oul others abstained from fruit and eggs others eat only dry bread others not that neither And so for their publick Assemblies Some communicating every Lords day others not The Church of Alexandria had its publick Meetings and Sermons every fourth day of the week as he tells us The same Church made the publick Readers and Interpreters either of the Catechumeni or of the baptized differing therein from all other Churches Several Customes were used about Digamy and the Marriage of Ministers in several Churches So about the time of Baptism some having only one set time in the year for it as at Easter in Tâ—hâ—ssaly others two Easter and Dominica in Albis so call'd from the white garments of the baptized Some Churches in Baptism used three dippings others only one Great differences about the time of their being Catechumeni in some places longer in others a shorter time So about the Excommunicate and degrees of penance as they are call'd their Flentes audientes succumbentes consistentes the Communio peregrinae the several Chrismes in vertice in pectore in some places at Baptism in some after So for placing the Altar as they Metaphorically called the Communion Table it was not constantly towards the East for Socrates affirms that in the great Church at Antiochia it stood to the West end of the Church and therefore it had 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a different positure from other Churches And Eusebius saith out of the Panegyrist that in the New Church built by Paulinus at Tyre the Altar stood 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the middle These things may suffice for a taste at present of which more largely elsewhere God willing in due time We see the Primitive Christians did not make so much of any Uniformity in Rites and Ceremonies nay I scarce think any Churches in the Primitive times can be produced that did exactly in all things observe the same customes Which might especially be an argument of moderation in all as to these things but especially in pretended Admirers of the Primitive Church I conclude with a known saying of Austin Indignum est ut propter ea quae nos Deo neque digniores neque indigniores possunt facere alii alios vel condemnemus vel judicemus It is an unworthy thing for Christians to condemn and judge one another for those things which do not further us at all in our way to Heaven Lastly That Religion be not clogg'd with Ceremonies They when multiplied too much if lawful yet strangely eat out the heart heat life vigour of Christianity Christian Religion is a plain simple easie thing Christ commends his Yoke to us by the easiness of it and his burden by the lightness of it It was an excellent testimony which Amm. Marcellinus a Heathen gave to Christianity when speaking of Constantius Religionem Christianam rem absolutam simplicem aâ—â—li superstitione confudit That he spoiled the beauty of Christianity by musting it up in Superstitious observations And it is as true which Erasmus said in answer to the Sorbonists Quò magis in corporalibus ceremoniis haeremus hoc magis vergimus ad Iudaismum External Ceremonies teach us backward and bring us back from Christ to Moses which is fully proved as to the Papists by our Learned Rainolds and Mr. De Croy But we need no further Evidence then a bare perusal of Durandus Mimatensis his Rationale Divinorum officiorum By Ceremonies I mean not here matters of meer decency and order for order sake which doubtless are lawful if the measure of that order be not the pomp and glory of the world but the gravity composure sobriety which becomes Christianity for when the Jews were the most strictly tyed up by a Ceremonial Law they did introduce many things upon the account of order and decency ás the building Synagogues their hours of Prayer their Parashoth and Haphtaroth the Sections of the Law and Prophets the continuation of the Passover fourteen days by Hezekiah when the Law required but seven the Feast of Purim by Esther and Mordecai the Fasts of the 4. 5. 10 moneth under the Captivity the Feast of Dedication by the Maccabees The use of Baptism in Proselyting washing the feet before the Passeover imitated and practised by our Saviour So that matters of Order and Decency are allowable and fitting but Ceremonies properly taken for actions significative and therefore appointed because significative their lawfulness may with better ground be scrupled Or taking Ceremony in Bellarmines description of it to be actio externa quae non aliunde est bona laudabilis nisi quia fit ad Deum colendum And in this sense it will be hard to manifest any thing to be lawful but what is founded upon a Divine Precept if it be not a matter of Order and so no Ceremony And as for significative Ceremonies concerning matter of Doctrine or Fact a learned Dr. puts us in mind of the old Rule that they be paucae salubres and the fewer the more wholesome for as he observes from Aristotle in Insectâ—le Animals the want of blood was the cause they run out into so many legs I shall conclude this whole Discourse with another Speech of S. Austin very pertinenâ— to our present purpose Omnia itaque talia quae neque sanctarum Scripturarum autoritatibus continentur nec in Conâ—iliis Episcoporum statuta inveniuntur nec consuetudine universae Ecclesiae roborata sunt sed diversorum locorum diversis moribus innumerabiliter variantur ita ut vix aut omnino nunquam inveniri possint causae quas in eis instituendis secuti sunt homines ubi facultas tribuitur sine ulla dubitatione resecanda existimo All such things which are neither founded on the authority of the Scriptures nor determined by General Councils for so he must be understood nor practised by the Catholick Church but vary according to the customes of places of which no rational account can be given â—ssoon as men have power to do it I judge them to be cut off without any scruple For which definitive sentence of his he gives this most sufficient Reason Quamvis enim neque hoc inveniri possit quomodo contra fidem sint ipsam tamen religionem quam paucissimis manifestissimis celebrationem sacramentis misericordia Dei liberam esse voluit servilibus oneribus premunt ut tolerabilior
lesser matter if wilfully taken up and obstinately maintained is call'd Here sit which two are seldom seen out of each others company and when they are together are like the blind and same man in the Fable the one lent the other eyes and the other lent him feet one to find out what they desired the other to run away with it when they had it The Heretick he useth his eyes to spy out some cause or pretence of deserting Communion the Schismatick he helps him with his legâ— to run away from it but between them both they rob the Church of its peace and unity But in order to the making clear what the Churches power is in reference to these we are to take notice of these things First That the Church hath no direct immediate power over mens opinions So that a matter of meer different opinion lyes not properly within the cognizance of any Church power the reason of it is this because the end of power lodged in the Church is to preserve the peace and unity of its self now a meer different opinion doth not violate the bonds of Society for Opinionum diâ—er sitas opinantium unitas non sunt 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Men may preserve communion under different apprehensions So long then as diversity of opinion tends not to the breaking the quiet and tranquillity of the Church of God a man may safely enjoy his own private apprehensions as to any danger of molestation from Church Governours That is so long as a man keeps his opinion to himself and hath the power of being his own Counsellor It is not the difference of opinion formally considered when it is divulged abroad that is punishable but the tendency to Schism which lyes in the divâ—lging of it and drawing others away from the received Truths For the opinion its self is an internall act of the mind and therefore is punishable by no externall power as that of the Magistrate or Church is as no internall action is under the jurisdiction or authority of a Magistrate any further then as necessarily conjoyned with the outward action or as it hath a direct influence upon it The case of blasphemy which is a thing of the highest nature in this kind is not punishable by men as blasphemy implyes low and undervaluing thoughts of God but as being a thing divulged else no formal blaspemy it tends apparently to the dishonour of God and consequently to the breaking in pieces all such Societies whose great foundation is the belief of the Majesty and glory of God So Idolatry under the Law was punished as it was immediately destructive of that obedience which men did owe to the true God And under the Gospel it is not meer difference of opinion judgement and apprehension which layes men open to the Censures of that power which moderates and rules a religious Society but the endeavour by difference of opinion to alienate mens spirits one from another and thereby to break the Society into fractions and divisions is that which makes men liable to restraint and punishment From whence it follows that where the peace and unity of the Church may be preserved and yet men keep up different apprehensions of things there is nothing deserving any severe animadversion from the Rulers of that Society For a power corrective and vindictive must suppose something acted contrary to the Laws and Rules of the Society and the end of committing that power into the hands of Governours now here is nothing of that nature for the Laws of mutual Society are observed and the end of Church-Government is to see nè quid Ecclesia detrimenti capiat lest the Church as a Society be any wayes prejudiced which cannot be while men maintain that love affection and communion which becomes the members of such a Society The unity then required in the Church is not an unity of judgement and apprehension among the members of it which though it be their duty to endeavour after yet it is no further attainable by mens endeavours then perfection is and Unio Christianorum in this sense is one of the Jewels belonging to the Crown of Heaven There is no necessity then of inquiring after an infallible Judge of Controversies unlesse we had some promise and assurance from Christ that the members of his Church should never differ in their judgements from one another and then what need of an infallible Judge and if Christ had appointed an infallible Judg he would infallibly have discovered it to the minds of all sober men or else his infallibility could never attain its end For while I question whether my Judge be infallible or no I cannot infallibly assent to any of his determinations And where there is no ground for an infallible Judge for any to pretend to it is the worst of supposable errours because it renders all others incurable by that apprehension and takes away all possibility of repentance while men are under that perswasion The Unity then of the Church is that of Communion and not that of Apprehension and different opinions are no further lyable to censures then as men by the broaching of them do endeavour to disturb the peace of the Church of God That then which seems most lyable to censures in a Church is Schism as being immediately destructive of that communion which should be maintained in a religious Society But as to this too we must observe something further and not to think and judge every thing to deserve the name which is by many call'd Schism it being well observed by a very learned and judicious Divine that Heresie and Schism as they are commonly used are two Theologicall scare-crows with which they who use to uphold a party in Religion use to fright away such as making enquiry into it are ready to relinquish and oppose it if it appear either erroneous or suspitious For as Plutarch reports of a Painter who having unskilfully painted a Cock chased away all Cocks and Hens that so the imperfection of his Art might not appear by comparison with nature so men willing for ends to admit of no fancy but their own endeavour to hinder an enquiry into it by way of comparison of somewhat with it peradventure truer that so the deformity of their own might not appear Thus he Schism then as it imports a separation from communion with a Church-society is not a thing intrinsecally and formally evil in it self but is capable of the differences of good and evil according to the grounds reasons ends and circumstances inducing to such a separation The withdrawing from Society is but the materiality of Schism the formality of it must be fetched from the grounds on which that is built It is therefore a subject which deserve a strict inquiry what things those are which may make a withdrawing from a religious Society to which a man is joyned to be lawfull For as it is a great sin on the one hand unnecessarily to
divide and separate from Church-society so it is an offence on the other side to continue communion when it is a duty to withdraw it For the resolving this knotty and intricate Question I shall lay down some things by way of premisall and come closely to the resolution of it First Every Christian is under an obligation to joyn in Church-society with others because it is his duty to professe himself a Christian and to own his Religion publickly and to partake of the Ordinances and Sacraments of the Gospel which cannot be without society with some Church or other Every Christian as such is bound to look upon himself as the member of a body viz. the visible Church of Christ and how can he be known to be a member who is not united with other parts of the body There is then an obligation upon all Christianâ— to engage in a religious Society with others for partaking of the Ordinances of the Gospel It hath been a case disputed by some particularly by Grotius the supposed Author of a little Tract An semper sit communicandum per symbolu when he designed the Syncretism with the Church of Rome whether in a time when Churches are divided it be a Christians duty to communicate with any of those parties which divide the Church and not rather to suspend communion from all of them A case not hard to be decided for either the person questioning it doth suppose the Churches divided to remain true Churches but some to be more pure then others in which case by vertue of his generall obligation to communion he is bound to adhere to that Church which appears most to retain its Evangelicall purity Or else he must suppose one to be a true Church and the other not in which the case is clearer that he is bound to communicate with the true Church or he must judge them alike impure which is a case hard to be found but supposing it is so either he hath joyned formerly with one of them or he is now to choose which to joyn with if he be joyned already with that Church and sees no other but as impure as that he is bound to declare against the impurity of the Church and to continue his communion with it if he be to choose communion he may so long suspend till he be satisfied which Church comes nearest to the primitive constitution and no longer And therefore I know not whether Chrysostomes act were to be commended who after being made a Deacon in the Church of Antioch by Meletius upon his death because Flavianus came in irregularly as Bishop of the Church would neither communicate with him nor with Paulinus another Bishop at that time in the City nor with the Meletians but for three years time withdrew himself from communion with any of them Much lesse were the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or the Haesitantes as the Latins called them to be commended who after the determination of the Council of Chalcedou against Entyches because of great differences remaining in Egypt and the Eastern Churches followed Zenoes Henoticum and would communicate neither with the Orthodox Churches nor Eutychians But I see not what censure Jâ—â—ome could in â—urr who going into the Diocesse of Antioeh and finding the Churches there under great divisions there being besides the Arian Bishop three others in the Church of Antioch Meletius Paulinus and Vitalis did so long suspend communion with any of them till he had satisfied himself about the occasion of the Schism and the innocency of the persons and Churches engaged in it But if he had withdrawn longer he had offended against his obligation to joyn in Church-society with others for participation of Gospel-Ordinances which is the necessary duty of every Christian. Secondly Every Christian actually joyned in Church-society with others is so long bound to maintain society with them till his communion with them becomes sin For nothing else can justifie withdrawing from such a Society but the unlawfulness of continuing any longer in it Supposing a Church then to remain true as to its constitution and essentials but there be many corruptions crept into that Church whether is it the duty of a Christian to withdraw from that Church because of those corruptions and to gather new Churches only for purer administration or to joyn with them only for that end This as far as I understand it is the state of the Controversie between our Parochiall Churches and the Congregationall The resolution of this great Question must depend on this Whether is it a sin to communicate with Churches true as to essentialls but supposed corrupt in the exercise of discipline For Parochiall Churches are not denyed to have the essentialls of true Churches by any sober Congregational men For there is in them the true Word of God preached the true Sacraments administred and an implicite Covenant between Pastor and People in their joyning together All that is pleaded then is corruption and defect in the exercise and administration of Church order and Discipline Now that it is lawfull for Christians to joyn with Churches so defective is not only acknowledged by Reverend Mr. Norton in his answer to Apollius but largely and fully proved For which he layes down five Propositions which deserve to be seriously considered by all which make that a plea for withdrawing from society with other Churches First A Believer may lawfully joyn himself in communion with such a Church where he cannot enjoy all the Ordinances of God aâ— in the Jewish Church in our Saviours time which refused the Gospel of Christ and the baptism of Iohn and yet our Saviour bids us hear the Scribes and Pharisees sitting in Moses Chair which hearing saith he doth imply conjunctionem Ecclesiae Iudaicae a joyning with the Iewish Church and so with Churches rejecting an article of faith in the Church of Corinth the doctrine of the Reâ—â—â—rection in the Churches of Galatia the doctrine of Ju 〈…〉 ion by faith but the Apostle no-where requires separation on that account from them Secondly A Believer may lawfully joyn in communion with such a Church in which some corruption in the worship of God is tolerated without Reformation As the offering on High-places from Solomon to Hezâ—kiah in the Church of Iuda observation of Circumcâ—sion and the necessity of keeping the Ceremonial Law in the Churches of Galaâ—ia Thirdly A Believer may lawfully joyn himself in communion with such a Church in which such are admitted to Sacraments who give no evident signs of grace but seem to be Lovers of this World which he proves because it is every ones main duty to examine himself and because anothers sin is no hurt to him and therefore cannot keep him from his duty and then by mens coming unworthily non polluitur communio licet minuitur consolatio the communion iâ— not defiled though the comfort of it be diminished He brings instance from the Church of Corinth among whom were many
scandalous and had not repented 2 Cor. 12. 20 21. So in the Jewish Church which lay under great corruptions when our Saviour and his Apostles communicated with it Fourthly Although a Believer joyn with such a Church he is not therefore bound with the guilt nor defiled with the pollutions of others which he proves because it is lawfull to do it and so he contract no guilt by it Fifthly A Believer that hath joyned himself to such a Church is not bound to withdraw and separate from such a Church under pain of guilt if he doth it not because it implyes a contradiction to be lawfull to joyn to such a Church and yet unlawfull to continue in its communion for that speaks it to be a Church and this latter to be no Church and by that he doth imply it to be unlawfull to separate from any Society which is acknowledged to be a true Church Thus for that learned and Reverend man by whom we see that the received Principles of the sober and moderate part of those of that perswasion are not at such a distance from others as many imagine We see then that communicating with a Church not so pure as we desire iâ— no sin by the arguments by him produced And how it should be then lawfull to withdraw from such a Church meerly for purer communion I 〈…〉 stand not This I am sure was not the case of our Churches in their separation from the Church of Rome the main ground of which was the sin of communicating with that Church in her Idolatry and Superstition and the impossibility of communicating with her and not partaking of her sins because she required a profession of her errours and the practise of her Idolatry as the necessary conditions of her communion in which case it is a sin to communicate with her And this leads me now to a closer resolution of the case of withdrawing from Churches in which men have formerly been associated and the grounds which may make such a withdrawing lawfull In order to that we must distinguish between these things First Between corruptions in the doctrine of a Church and corruptions in the practice of a Church Secondly Between corruptions whether in doctrine or practise professed and avowed by a Church and required as conditions of communion in all members of it and corruptions crept in and only tolerated in a Church Thirdly Between non-Communion as to the abuses of a Church and a positive and totall separation from a Church as it is such From these things I lay down these following Propositions First Where any Church is guilty of corruptions both in doctrine and practice which it avoweth and professeth and requireth the owning them as necessary conditions of communion with her there a non-communion with that Church is necessary and a totall and positive separation is lawfull and convenient I have said already that the necessity and lawfulnesse of this departing from communion with any Church is wholly to be resolved by an inquiry into the grounds and reasons of the action it self So that the matter of fact must of necessity be discussed before the matter of Law as to separation from the Church be brought into debate If there be a just and necessary cause for separation it must needs be just and necessary therefore the cause must be the ground of resolving the nature of the â—ction Schism then is a separation from any Church upon any slight triviall unnecessary cause but if the cause be great and important a Departure it may be Schism it cannot be They who define Schism to be a voluntary separation from the Church of God if by voluntary they mean that where the will is the cause of it the definition stands good and true for that must needs be groundless and unnecessary as to the Church it self but if by voluntary be meant a spontaneous departing from communion with a Church which was caused by the corruptions of that Church then a separation may be so voluntary and yet no Schism for though it be voluntary as to the act of departing yet that is only consequentially supposing a cause sufficient to take such a resolution but what is voluntary antecedently that it hath no other Motive but faction and humour that is properly Schism and ought so to be looked upon But in our present case three things are supposed as the causes and motives to such a forsaking communion First Corruption in Doctrine the main ligature of a religious Society is the consent of it in Doctrine with the rule of Religion the Word of God Therefore any thing which tends to subvert and overthrow the foundation of the gathering such a Society which is the profession and practice of the true Religion yields sufficient ground to withdraw from communion with those who professe and maintain it Not that every small errour is a just ground of separation for then there would be no end of separation and men must separate from one another till knowledge comes to its perfection which will only be in glory but any thing which either directly or consequentially doth destroy any fundamental article of Christian faith Which may be as well done by adding to fundamental articles as by plain denying them And my reason is this because the very ratio of a fundamentall article doth imply not only its necessity to be believed and practised and the former in reference to the latter for things are therefore necessary to be known because necessary to be done and not è contrà but likewise its sufficiency as to the end for which it is called Fundamentall So that the articles of faith called Fundamentall are not only such as are necessary to be believed but if they be are sufficient for salvation to all that do believe them Now he that adds any thing to be believed or done as fundamentall that is necessary to salvation doth thereby destroy the sufficiency of those former articles in order to salvation for if they were sufficient how can new ones be necessary The case wil be clear by an Instance Who assert the satisfaction of Christ for sinners to be a fundamentall article and thereby do imply the sufficiency of the belief of that in order to salvation now if a Pope or any other command me to believe the meritoriousnesse of good works with the satisfaction of Christ as necessary to salvation by adding this he destroyes the former as a fundamentall article for if Christs satisfaction be sufficient how can good works be meritorious and if this latter be necessary the other was not for if it were what need this be added Which is a thing the Papists with their new Creed of Pius the fourth would do well to consider and others too who so confidently assert that none of their errours touch the foundation of faith Where there is now such corruption in Doctrine supposed in a Church withdrawing and separation from such a Church is as necessary as the
avoiding of her errours and not partaking of her sins is Thence we read in Scripture of rejecting such as are hereticks and withdrawing from their society which will as well hold to Churches as to persons and so much the more as the corruption is more dangerous and the relation nearer of a member to a Church then of one man to another And from the reason of that command we read in Ecclesiasticall History that when Eulalius Euphronius and Placentius were constituted Bishops of Antioch being Arrians many both of the Clergy and people who resolved to adhere to the true faith withdrew from the publike meetings and had private Assemblies of their own And after when Leontius was made Bishop of Antioch who favour'd the Arrians Flavianus and Diodorus not only publikely reproved him for deserting the Orthodox faith but withdrew the people from communion with him and undertook the charge of them themselves So when Foelix was made Bishop of Rome none of the Church of Rome would enter into the Church while he was there And Vincentius Lyrinensis tells us a remarkable story of Photinus Bishop of Syrmium in Pannonia a man of great abilities and same who suddenly turned from the true faith and though his people both loved and admired him yet when they discerned his errours Quem antea quasi arietem gregis sequebantur eundem deinceps veluti lupum fugere coeperunt Whom they followed before as the leader of the flock they now run away from as a devouring woolf This is the first thing which makes separation and withdrawment of communion lawfull and necessary viz. corruption of Doctrine The second is Corruption of practice I speak not of practice as relating to the civil conversation of men but as it takes in the Agenda of Religion When Idolatrous customs and superstitious practices are not only crept into a Church but are the prescribed devotion of it Such as the adoration of the Eucharist chiefly insisted on by Mr. Daillé in his Apology as a cause of separation from the Church of Rome invocation of Saints and Angels worshipping Images and others of a like nature used among the Papists which are of themselves sufficient to make our separation from them necessary But then thirdly as an accession to these two is the publike owning and professing them and requiring them as necessary conditions of communion from all the members of their Church which makes our withdrawing from them unavoidably necessary as long as we judge them to be such corruptions as indeed they are For men not to forsake the belief of errours supposing them to be such is impossible and not to forsake the practice and profession of them upon such belief were the highest hypocrisie and to do so and not to forsake the communion of that Church where these are owned is apparently contradictious as Mr. Chilling worth well observes seeing the condition of communion with it is that we must professe to believe all the doctrines of that Church not only not to be errours but to be certain and necessary truths So that on this account to believe there are any errours in the Church of Rome is actually and ipso facto to forsake the communion of that Church because the condition of its communion is the belief that there are none And so that learned and rationall Author there fully proves that those who require unlawfull and unnecessary conditions of communion must take the imputation of Schism upon themselves by making separation from them just and necessary In this case when corruptions in opinion or practice are thus required as conditions of communion it is impossible for one to communicate with such a Church without sin both materially as the things are unlawfull which he joyns with them in and formally as he judgeth them so This is the first Proposition The second is Where a Church retains the purity of doctrine in its publick profession but hath a mixture of some corruptions as to practice which are only tolerated and not imposed it is not lawfull to withdraw communion from such a Church much lesse to run into totall separation from it For here is no just and lawfull cause given of withdrawing here is no owned corruption of doctrine or practice nor any thing required as a condition of communion but what is in its self necessary and therefore there can be no plea but only pollution from such a communion which cannot be to any who do not own any such supposed corruptions in the Church Men may communicate with a Church and not communicate with the abuses of a Church for the ground of his communicating is its being a Church and not a corrupt or defective Church And that men are not themselves guilty by partaking with those who are guilty of corruptions in a Church might be easily and largely proved both from the Church of the Jews in the case of Elies sons and the Christian Churches of Asâ—â— and Corinth where we read of many corruptions reproved yet nothing spoken of the duty of the members of those Churches to separate from them which would have been had it been a sin to communicate with those Churches when such corruptions were in it Besides what reason is there that one mans sins should defile another more then anothers graces sanctifie another and why corruption in another should defile him more then in himself and so keep him from communicating with himself and what security any one can have in the most refined Churches but that there is some scandalous or at least unworthy person among them and whether then it is not his duty to try and examine all himself particularly with whom he communicates and why his presence at one Ordinance should defile it more then at another and why at any more then in wordly converse and so turn at last to make men Anchorets as it hath done some Many other reasons might be produced against this which I forbear it being fully spoke to by others And so I come to the Third Proposition which is Where any Church retaining the purity of doctrine doth require the owning of and conforming to any unlawfull or suspected practice men may lawfully deny conformity to and communion with that Church in such things without incurring the guilt of Schism I say not men may proceed to positive Schism as it is call'd that is erecting of new Churches which from Cyprian is call'd erigere Altare contra Altare but only that withdrawing communion from a Church in unlawfull or suspected things doth not lay men under the guilt of Schism which because I know it may meet with some opposition from those men who will sooner call men Schismaticks then prove them so I shall offer this reason for it to consideration If our separation from the Church of Rome was therefore lawfull because she required unlawfull things as conditions of her communion then where-ever such things are required by any Church non-communion
so much of their Natural Rights as was not consistent with the well being of the Society Secondly a free submission to all Laws which should be agreed upon at their entrance into Society or afterwards as they see cause But when Societies were already entred and Children born under them no such express consent was required in them being bound by vertue of the Protection they find from Authority to submit to it and an implicite consent is supposed in all such as are born under that Authority But for their more full understanding of this Obligation of theirs and to lay the greater tye of Obedience upon them when they come to understanding it hath been conceived very requisite by most States to have an explicite Declaration of their consent either by some formal Oath of Allegiance or some other way sufficiently expressing their fidelity in standing to the Covenants long since supposed to be made To apply this now to the Church We have all along hitherto considered the Church in general as a Society or Corporation which was necessary in order to our discovering what is in it from the light of nature without Positive Laws But here we must take notice of what was observed by Father Laynez the Jesuit at the Council of Trent That it is not with the Church as with other Societies which are first themselves and then constitute the Governours But the Governour of this Society was first himself and he appointed what Orders Rules and Lawes should govern this Society and wherein he hath determined any thing we are bound to look upon that as necessary to the maintaining of that Society which is built upon his Constitution of it And in many of those Orders which Christ hath settled in his Church the Foundation of them is in the Law of nature but the particular determination of the manner of them is from himself Thus it is in the case we now are upon Nature requires that every one entring into a Society should consent to the Rules of it Our Saviour hath determined how this Consent should be expressed viz. by receiving Baptism from those who have the power to dispense it which is the federal Rite whereby our consent is expressed to own all the Laws and submit to them whereby this Society is governed Which at the first entring of men into this Society of the Church was requisite to be done by the express and explicite consent of the parties themselves being of sufficient capacity to declare it but the Covenant being once entred into by themselves not onely in their own name but in the name of their Posterity a thing implyed in all Covenants wherein benefits do redound to Posterity that the Obligation should reach them to but more particular in this it having been alwayes the Tâ—nour of Gods Covenants with men to enter the seed as well as the persons themselves as to outward Priviledges an implicite consent as to the children in Covenant is sufficient to enter them upon the priviledges of it by Baptism although withal it be highly rational for their better understanding the Engagement they entred into that when they come to age they should explicitely declare their own voluntary consent to submit to the Lawes of Christ and to conform their lives to the Profession of Christianity which might be a more then probable way and certainly most agreeable both to Reason and Scripture to advance the credit of Christianity once more in the World which at this day so much suffers by so many professing it without understanding the terms of it who swallow down a profession of Christianity as boyes do pills without knowing what it is compounded of which is the great Reason it works so little alteration upon their spirits The one great cause of the great flourishing of Religion in the Primitive times was certainly the strictness used by them in their admission of members into Church-Societies which is fully described by Origen against Celsus who tells us they did 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 enquire into their lives and carriages to discern their seriousness in the profession of Christianity during their being Catechumeni Who after tells us they did require 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 true Repentance and Reformation of Life 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 then we admit them to the participation of our Mysteries I confess the Discipline of the Primitive Church hath been very much misrepresented to us by mens looking upon it through the glass of the modern practices and customs obtaining among us as though all this onely concerned the Admission to the Lords Supper though that was alwayes in chiefest veneration in the Church of God as being the chief of Gospel-Mysteries as they loved to speak yet I cannot find that any were admitted to all other Ordinances freely with them who were debarred from this but their admission to one did include an admission to all so on the contrary I finde none admitted to Baptism who were not to the Lords Supper and if Catechumeni presently after onely confirmation intervening which will hardly be ever found separate from Baptism till the distinction of the double Chrism in vertice pectore came up which was about Ieroms time The thing then which the Primitive Church required in admitting persons adult to Baptism and so to the Lords Supper was a serious visible profession of Christianity which was looked upon by them as the greatest Evidence of their real consent to the Rules of the Gospel For that purpose it will be worth our taking notice what is set down by Iustin Martyr Apolog. 2. speaking of the celebration of the Lords Supper 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Where we see what was required before Admission to the Lords Supper A Profession of Faith in the truths of the Gospel and answerable Life to the Gospel without which it was not lawful to participate of the Lords Supper And further we see by Pliny that the Christians of those times did make use of some solemn Engagements among themselves which he calls Sacramenta they did se Sacramento obstringere nè funta nè latrocinia nè adulteria committerent nè fidem fallerent c. and Tertullian reports it out of Pliny that he found nothing de Sacramentis eorum as Iunius first reads it out of M. S. for de Sacris after him Heraldus and as it is now read in Rigaltius Edition besides cautelam ad confoederandam disciplinam c. scelera prohibentes which Eusebius calls 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 pacta Covenants between them and so Master Selden interprets the place of Origen in the beginning of his Book against Celsus where Celsus begins his charge against the Christians 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 where he takes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not as Gelenius renders it conventus but in its proper sense for contracts or covenants that were made by the Christians as by other Societies onely permitted and tolerated by the Common-wealth
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and so 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the civil and not sacred sense as it denotes an excluding them from common Society but though it be freely granted that that is sometimes the signification of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as Mat. 10. 17. yet those particulars being considered which are already laid down I shall leave it to consideration whether it be more probable to take the word Synagogue here in a Civil or Sacred Sense when the occasion expressed is meerly a matter of Doctrine and Opinion and not any thing condemned by their Law Another thing which hath been I believe a great ground of mistaking in this matter is that excluding from the civill Society among them was alwayes consequent upon Excommunication the Reason whereof was because the Church and Common-wealth were not distinct among the Jews and the same persons who took care of Sacred did likewise of Civil things there being no distinct Sanhedrins among them as some imagine but from hence it no wayes follows but their Excommunication might be an exclusion from Sacred Worship as well as Civil Society However were it as they pretend that it was from civill commerce yet the whole people of the Jews being 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Gods peculiar people and his only Church in being before the times of the Gospel an exclusion in that respect from the common Society of them might deservedly be looked upon as a sacred action and not meerly civill it being a separation from a people whose main ligature was their being a Church of God or a Community gathered together for Gods worship and service Thus we see the Church of the Jews had this power among them and for the Christian Church the practice of Discipline upon offenders was never questioned though the right hath been so that from hence we gather in that it hath been the practice of Societies constituted for the Worship of God to call offenders to an account for their offences and if upon examination they be found guilty to exclude them their Society that it is a dictate of the Law of Nature That every offender against the Laws of a Society must give an account of his actions to the Rulers of it and submit to the Censures inflicted on him by them Thus I am now come to the end of my first stage to shew how far Church-Government is founded upon the Law and Light of Nature And so to the end of the first Part. PART II. CHAP. I. The other ground of Divine Right considered viz. Gods positive Laws which imply a certain knowledge of Gods intention to bind men perpetually As to which the Arguments drawn from Tradition and the practice of the Church in after-ages proved invalid by several arguments In order to a right stating the Question some Concessions laid down First That there must be some form of Government in the Church The notion of a Church explained whether it belongs only to particular Congregations which are manifested not to be of Gods primary intention but for our necessity Evidence for National Churches under the Gospel A National Church-Government necessary I Now come to the second way whereby any thing comes to be of unalterable Divine Right which is by the positive Laws of God which do bind universally to obedience In the entrance into this Discourse it is necessary to lay down the ways whereby we find out a Divine positive Law determining an unalterable Obligation which must be either by express words of Scripture or by some other certain way whereby to gather from thence that it was Gods intention to bind men For the main thing requisite to make a standing universal positive Law is Gods declaring his mind that the thing enquired into should unalterably bind men to the practice of it Now whatever doth sufficiently manifest Gods intention is a medium to find out such a Law by and nothing else But it must be such a manifestation as gives a mans mind sufficient evidence and testimony whereon to build a true certain and divine assent to the thing as revealed So that whatsoever binds the conscience as a Law must first be entertained by the understanding as a matter of faith not as it imports something meerly doctrinall and dogmaticall but as it implyes the matter of a Divine Revelation and the object of an assent upon the credibility of a Testimony For God having the only immediate authority over the consciences of men nothing can bind immediately the conscience but a Divine Law neither can any thing bind as such but what the understanding assents unto as revealed by God himself Now the Word of God being the only Codex and Digests of Divine Laws whatever Law we look for must either be found there in express terms or at least so couched therein that every one by the exercise of his understanding may by a certain and easie collection gather the universall obligation of the thing enquired after In this case then whatsoever is not immediately founded upon a Divine Testimony cannot be made use of as a Medium to infer an universally binding Law by So that all Traditions and Historicall evidence will be unserviceable to us when we enquire into Gods intentions in binding mens consciences Matters of fact and meer Apostolicall practice may I freely grant receive much light from the Records of succeeding ages but they can never give a mans understanding sufficient ground to inferr any Divine Law arising from those facts attested to be the practice or Records of succeeding ages For first The foundation and ground of our assent in this case is not the bare testimony of Antiquity but the assurance which we have either that their practice did not vary from what was Apostolicall or in their Writings that they could not mistake concerning what they deliver unto us And therefore those who would inferr the necessary obligation of men to any form of Government because that was practised by the Apostles and then prove the Apostolicall practice from that of the ages succeeding or from their Writings must first of all prove that what was done then was certainly the Apostles practice and so prove the same thing by its self or that it was impossible they should vary from it or that they should mistake in judging of it For here something more is required then a meer matter of fact in which I confess their nearnesse to the Apostles times doth give them an advantage above the ages following to discern what it was but such a practice is required as inferrs an universall obligation upon all places times and persons Therefore these things must be manifested that such things were unquestionably the practice of those ages and persons that their practice was the same with the Apostles that what they did was not from any prudential motives but by vertue of a Law which did bind them to that practice Which things are easily passed over by the
Besides if either that place of Ioel or that of Ieremy cited Heb. 8. 11. or the Unction of the Spirit 1 John 2. 20 27. did take away the use of preaching how did the Apostles themselves understand their meaning when they were so diligent in preaching and instructing others Iohn writes to those to try the Spirits of whom he saith They have an Unction to know all things and those to whom the Apostle writes that they need not teach every one his Neighbour of them he saith that they had need to be taught the first principles of the Oracles of God And even in that very Chapter where he seems to say they that are under the New Covenant need not be taught he brings that very Speech in as an argument that the old dispensation of the Law was done away And so goes about to teach when he seems to take away the use of it These Speeches then must not be understood in their absolute and literal sense but with a reflection upon and comparison with the state of things in the times wherein those Prophecies were utter'd For God to heighten the Jews apprehensions of the great blessings of the Gospel doth set them forth under a kind of Hyperbolical expressions that the dull capacity of the Jews might at least apprehend the just weight and magnitude of them which they would not otherwise have done So in that place of Ieremy God to make them understand how much the knowledge of the Gospel exceeded that under the Law doth as it were set it down in this Hyperbolicall way that it will exceed it as much as one that needs no teaching at all doth one that is yet but in his rudiments of learning So that the place doth not deny the use of teaching under the Gospel but because Teaching doth commonly suppose ignorance to shew the great measure of knowledge he doth it in that way as though the knowledge should be so great that men should not need be taught in such a way of Rudiments as the Jews were viz by Types and Ceremonies and such things We see then no such dispensation was in the Apostles times for the same Apostle after this in Chapt. 10. 25. bids them not to forsake the Assembling themselves together as some did Wherefore were these Assemblies but for Instruction and in the last Chapter bids them obey their Rulers What need Rulers if no need of Teaching But so sensless a dream will be too much honour'd with any longer confutation In the Apostles times then there was no such dispensation of the Spirit which did take away the use of Ministry and Ordinances If it be expected since their times I would know whence it appears that any have a greater measure of the Spirit then was poured out in the Apostles times for then the Ministry was joyned with the Spirit and what Prophecies are fulfilled now which were not then Or if they pretend to a Doctrine distinct from and above what the Apostles taught let them produce their evidences and work those miracles which may induce men to believe them Or let them shew what obligation any have to believe pretended new Revelations without a power of miracles attesting that those Revelations come from God Or whereon men must build their faith if it be left to the dictates of a pretended Spirit of Revelation Or what way is left to discern the good Spirit from the bad in its actings upon mens minds if the Word of God be not our Rule still Or how God is said to have spoken in the last dayes by his Son if a further speaking be yet expected For the Gospel-dispensation is therefore called the Last dayes because no other is to be expected Times being differenced in Scripture according to Gods wayes of revealing himself to men But so much for this The second way whereby to know when Positive Lawes are unalterable is when God hath declared that such Lawes shall bind still Two wayes whereby God doth express his own Will concerning the perpetuity of an Office founded on his own Institution First if such things be the work belonging to it which are of necessary and perpetual use Secondly if God hath promised to assist them in it perpetually in the doing of their work First the Object of the Ministerial Office are such things which are of necessary and perpetual use I mean the Administration of Gospel-Ordinances viz. the Word and Sacraments which were appointed by Christ for a perpetual Use. The Word as a means of Conversion and Edification the Sacraments not onely as notes of distinction of Professors of the true faith from others but as Seals to confirm the Truth of the Covenant on Gods part towards us and as Instruments to convey the blessings sealed in the Covenant to the hearts of Believers Now the very Nature of these things doth imply their perpetuity and continuance in the world as long as there shall be any Church of God in it For these things are not typi rerum futurarum only Ceremonies to represent somthing to come but they are symbola rerum invisibilium signs to represent to our Senses things invisible in their own Nature and between these two there is a great difference as to the perpetuity of them For Types of things as to come must of necessity expire when the thing typified appears but representation of invisible things cannot expire on that account because the thing represented as invisible cannot be supposed to be made visible and so to evacuate the use of the Signes which represents them to us Types represent a thing which is at present invisible but under the Notion of it as future Symbols represent a thing at present invisible but as present and therefore Symbols are designed by Gods Institution for a perpetuall help to the weakness of our Faith And therefore the Lords Supper is appointed to set forth the Lords Death till he come whereby the continuance of it in the Church of God is necessarily implied Now then if these things which are the proper object of the Ministerial Function be of a perpetual Nature when these things are declared to be of an abiding Nature it necessarily follows that that Function to which it belongs to administer these things must be of a perpetual Nature Especially if we consider in the second place that Christ hath promised to be with them continually in the administration of these things For that notwithstanding the dust lately thrown upon it we have a clear place Matth. 28. 19. Go teach and baptize c. Loe I am with you alwayes to the end of the World If 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 did not signifie perpetuity yet certainly the latter words do for how could Christ be with the Apostles themselves personally to the end of the World It must be therefore with them and all that succeed them in the Office of Teaching and Baptizing to the Worlds end For that I
comparison of Christ with Moses from the equal necessity of forms of Government now which there is for other Societies from the perfection and sufficiency of the Scriptures all other arguments are reducible to these three Heads Of these in their order First From the comparison of Christ with Moses they argue thus If Moses was faithfull in his house as a servant much more Christ as a Son now Moses appointed a particular form of Government for the Church under the old Testament therefore Christ did certainly lay down a form of Church Government for the New Testament To this I answer first Faithfulnesse implyes the discharge of a trust reposed in one by another so that it is said vers 2. he was faithful to him that appointed him Christs faithfulnesse then lay in discharging the Work which his Father laid upon him which was the Work of mediation between God and us and therefore the comparison is here Instituted between Moses as typical Mediator and Christ as the true Mediator that as Moses was faithfull in his Work so was Christ in his Now Moses his faithfulnesse lay in keeping close to the Pattern received in the Mount that is observing the commands of God Now therefore if Christs being faithfull in his office doth imply the setling any one form of Goverment in the Church it must be made appear that the serling of this form was part of Christs Mediatory Work and that which the Father commanded him to do as Mediator and that Christ received such a form from the Father for the Christian Church as Moses did for the Jewish To this it is said That the Government is laid upon Christs shoulders and all power in his hands and therefore it belongs to him as Mediatour Christ I grant is the King of the Church and doth govern it outwardly by his Laws and inwardly by the conduct of his Spirit but shall we say that therefore any one form of Government is necessary which is neither contained in his Laws nor dictated by his Spirit the main original of mistakes here is the confounding the external and internal Government of the Church of Christ and thence whensoever men read of Christs power authority and government they fancy it refers to the outward Government of the Church of God which is intended of his internal Mediatory power over the hearts and consciences of men But withall I acknowledge that Christ for the better government of his Church and people hath appointed Officers in his Church invested them by vertue of his own power with an authority to preach and baptize and administer all Gospel-Ordinances in his own Name that is by his authority for it is clearly made known to us in the Word of God that Christ hath appointed these things But then whether any shall succeed the Apostles in superiority of power over Presbyters or all remain governing the Church in an equality of power is nowhere determined by the Will of Christ in Scripture which contains his Royal Law and therefore we have no reason to look upon it as any thing flowing from the power and authority of Christ as Mediator and so not necessarily binding Christians Secondly I answer If the correspondency between Christ and Moses in their work doth imply an equal exactnesse in Christs disposing of every thing in his Church as Moses did among the Jews then the Church of Christ must be equally bound to all circumstances of Worship as the Jews were For there was nothing appertaining in the least to the Worship of God but was fully set down even to the pins of the Tabernacle in the Law of Moses but we find no such thing in the Gospel The main Duties and Ordinances are prescribed indeed but their circumstances and manner of performance are left as matters of Christian-liberty and only couched under some general Rules which is a great difference between the legal and Gospel-state Under the Law all Ceremonies and Circumstances are exactly prescribed but in the Gospel we read of some general Rules of direction for Christians carriage in all circumstantial things These four especially contain all the directions of Scripture concerning Circumstantials All things to be done decently and in order All to be done for edification Give no offence Do all to the glory of God So that the particular circumstances are left to Christian-liberty with the observation of general Rules It is evident as to Baptism and the Lords Supper which are unquestionably of divine Institution yet as to the circumstances of the administration of them how much lesse circumstantial is Christ then Moses was As to circumcision and the pass-over under the Law the age time persons manner place form all fully set down but nothing so under the Gospel Whether Baptism shall be administred to Infants or no is not set down in expresse words but left to be gathered by Analogy and consequences what manner it shall be administred in whether by dipping or sprinkling is not absolutely determined what form of words to be used whether in the name of all three persons or sometimes in the Name of Christ only as in the Acts we read if that be the sense and not rather in Christs Name i. e. by Christs authority Whether sprinkling or dipping shall be thrice as some Churches use it or only once as others These things we see relating to an Ordinance of Divine Institution are yet past over without any expresse command determining either way in Scripture So as to the Lords Supper What persons to be admitted to it whether all visible professors or only sincere Christians upon what terms whether by previous examination of Church-officers or by an open profession of their faith or else only by their own tryal of themselves required of them as their duty by their Ministers whether it should be alwayes after Supper as Christ himself did it whether taking fasting or after meat whether kneeling or sitting or leaning Whether to be consecrated in one form of words or several These things are not thought fit to be determined by any positive command of Christ but left to the exercise of Christian-liberty the like is as to preaching the Word publike Prayer singing of Psalmes the duties are required but the particular Modes are left undetermined The case is the same as to Church-governwent That the Church be governed and that it be governed by its proper Officers are things of Divine appointment but whether the Church should be governed by many joyning together in an equality or by Subordination of some persons to others is left to the same liberty which all other Circumstances are this being not the Substance of the thing it self but onely the manner of performance of it 3. I answer That there is a manifest disparity between the Gospel and Jewish state and therefore Reasons may be given why all Punctilioes were determined then which are not now as 1. The perfection and
of the Governours acting in it but that care which Paul had over all the Churches would have prompted him especially being assisted and guided by an infallible Spirit in the penning those Epistles to have laid down some certain Rules for the acting of the Pastors of the Churches after the departure of Timothy and Titus Considering especially that the Epistles then written by him were to be of standing perpetual use in the Church of God and by which the Churches in after-ages were to be guided as well as those that were then in being The Apostle in both Epistles takes care for a succession of Pastors in those Churches Timothy is charged to commit the things he had heard of Paul to faithful men who shall be fit to teach others Had it not been as requisite to have charged him to have committed his power of Government to men fit for that had the Apostles looked on the form of Government to be as necessary as the office of preaching Paul saith he left Titus in Creete on purpose to settle the Churches and ordain Presbyters in every City had it not been as necessary to have shewed in what order the Churches must be setled and what power did belong to those Presbyters and how they should act in the governing their Churches had he thought the constitution of the Churches did depend upon the form of their acting We see here then that St. Paul doth not expresse any thing necessarily inferring any one constant form to be used in the Church of God And whence can we inferr any necessity of it but from the Scriptures laying it down as a duty that such a form and no other there must be used in the Church of God For all that we can see then by Pauls direction for Church-Government when if ever this should have been expressed it was left to the Christian wisdome and prudence of the Churches of Ephesus and Creet to consult and determine in what manner the government of their Churches should be provided for upon the departure of Timothy and Titus from them But here it will be soon replyed That though nothing be expressed in Pauls Epistles to Timothy and Titus yet Pauls appointing Timothy and Titus over those Churches did determine the form of Government and they were entrusted with a power to provide for future Governours after them To this â—answer First The superiority which Timothy and Titus had over those Churches doth not prove that form of Government necessary in all Churches I dispute not whether they were Evangelists or no or acted as such in that Superiority of that afterwards it is evident they might be so there being no convincing argument to the contrary And the bare possibility of the truth of the Negative destroys the necessity of the Affirmative of a Proposition As Si posibile est hominem non esse animal then that Proposition is false Necesse est hominem esse animal For Necesse est esse and Non possibile est non esse being â—quipollents on the one side and Possibile est non esse Et non necesse est esse being â—quipollents on the other Possibile est non esse must be contradictory to Necesse est esse as Non possibile est non esse is to Non necesse est esse So that if only the possibility of their acting as Evangelists that is by an extraordinary Commission be evicted which I know none will deny the necessity of their acting as fixed Bishops is destroyed and consequently the necessity of the continuance of their office too which depends upon the former For if they acted not as Bishops nothing can be drawn from their example necessarily inforcing the continuance of the Superiority which they enjoyed But though nothing can be inferred from hence as to the necessity of that office to continue in the Church which Timothy and Titus were invested in yet from the Superiority of that power which they enjoyed over those Churches whether as Evangelists or as fixed Bishops These two things may be inferred First That the superiority of some Church-Officers over others is not contrary to the Rule of the Gospel for all parties acknowledge the superiority of their power above the Presbyters of the several Cityes only the continuance of this power â—â— disputed by many But if they had any such power at all it is enough for my present design viz. that such a superiority is not contrary to the Gospel-Rule or that the nature of the Government of the Church doth not imply a necessary equality among the Governours of it Secondly Hence I infer that it is not repugnant to the constitution of Churches in Apostolical times for men to have power over more than one particular Congregation For such a power Timothy and Titus had which had it been contrary to the nature of the regiment of Churches we should never have read of in the first planted Churches So that if those popular arguments of a necessary relation between a Pastor and particular people of personal knowledge care and inspection did destroy the lawfulnesse of extending that care and charge to many particular Congregations they would likewise overthrow the nature end and design of the office which Timothy and Titus acted in which had a relation to a multitude of particular and Congregational Churches Whether their power was extraordinary or no I now dispute not but whether such a power be repugnant to the Gospel or no which from their practice is evident that it is not But then others who would make this office necessary urge further that Timothy or Titus might ordain and appoint others to succeed them in their places and care over all those Churches under their charge To which I answer First What they might do is not the question but what they did as they might do it so they might not do it if no other evidence be brought to prove it for Quod possibile est esse possibile â—st non esse Secondly Neither what they did is the whole question but what they did with an opinion of the necessity of doing it whether they were bound to do it or no and if so whether by any Law extant in Scripture and given them by Paul in his Epistles or some private command and particular instructions when he deputed them to their several charges If the former that Law and command must be produced which will hardly be if we embrace only the received Canon of the Scripture If the latter we must then fetch some standing Rule and Law from unwritten Traditions for no other evidence can be given of the Instructions by word of mouth given by Paul to Timothy and Titus at the taking their charges upon them But yet Thirdly Were it only the matter of fact that was disputed that would hold a Controversie still viz. Whether any did succeed Timothy and Titus in their Offices but this I shall leave to its proper place to be discussed when
I come to examine the argument from Apostolical Succession Thus we see then that neither the qualification of the persons nor the commands for a right exercise of the office committed to them nor the whole Epistles to Timothy and Titus do determine any one form of Government to be necessary in the Church of God Thirdly Let us see whether the general Rules do require any one form which rules in that they are general can determine nothing of the authority it self as to its particular mode being intended only for the regulation of the exercise of the authority in which men are placed And it is an evidence that nothing is particularly determined in this case when the Spirit of God only lays down such Rules for government which are applyable to distinct forms Otherwise certainly some Rule would have been laid down which could have been applyed to nothing but to that one form That none take the office of preaching without a Call nor go without sending will equally hold whether the power of Ordination lye in a Bishop with Presbyters or in Presbyters acting with equality of power That offenders be censured and complaints made to the Church in case of scandal determines nothing to whom the power of Jurisdiction doth solely belong nor what that Church is which must receive these complaints That all things be done with decency and order doth prescribe nothing wherein that Decency lyes nor how far that Order may extend nor yet who must be the Judges of that Decency and Order That all be done for edification and the common benefit of the Church doth no wayes restrain his Churches freedom in disposing of its self as to the form of its government so the aym of the Church be for the better edification of the body of the Church and to promote the benefit of it But methinks these general Orders and Rules for Discipline do imply the particular manner of government to be left at liberty to the Church of God so that in all the several forms these general Rules be observed Whereas had Christ appointed a superiour Order to govern other subordinate Officers and the Church together Christs command for governing the Church would have been particularly addressed to them and again had it been the will of Christ there should be no superior Order above the Pastours of particular Churches there would have been some expresse and direct prohibition of it which because we no where read it seems evident that Christ hath left both the one and the other to the freedom and liberty of his Church So much shall serve in this place to shew how improbable it is that Christ did ever prescribe any one form of Government in his Church since he hath only laid down general Rules for the management of Church government But this will not yet suffice those who plead that Christ must determine one immutable form of Government in his Church but although it be a high presumption to determine first what Christ must do before we examine what he hath done yet we shall still proceed and examine all the pretences that are brought for this opinion The next thing then which is generally urged for it is the equal necessity of Christs instituting a certain form as for any other Legislator who models a Common-wealth Now for answer to this I say first That Christ hath instituted such an immutable government in his Church as is sufficient for the succession and continuance of it which is all which Founders of Common-wealths do look after viz. that there be such an Order and distinction of persons and subordination of one to the other that a Society may still be preserved among them now this is sufficiently provided for by Christs appointing Officers continually to rule his Church and establishing Laws for the perpetuating of such Officers so whatsoever is necessary in order to the general ends of Government is acknowledged to be appointed by Jesus Christ. Untill then that it be proved that one form of government is in it self absolutely necessary for the being of a Church this argument can prove nothing for what is drawn from necessity will prove nothing but in a case of necessity Secondly I answer That those things which are not absolutely necessary to the being of a Church are left to Christs liberty whether he will determine them or no and are no further to be looked on as necessary then as he hath determined by his Laws whether they shall be or no in his Church The thing will be thus cleared When I read that Zaleucus Lycurgus or Numa did form a Common-wealth and make Laws for it I presently conclude that there must be some order or distinction of persons in this Common wealth and some rules whereby persons must be governed and whereby others must Rule But I cannot hence inferr that Zaleucus or Lycurgus did institute Monarchical Aristocratical or Democratical Government because any of these forms might be agreeable to their design and therefore what kind of government they did appoint can no otherwise be known then by taking a view of the Laws which they made in order thereto So it is in reference to Christ when we read that Christ hath instituted a Church alwayes to continue in the World we presently apprehend that there must be some power and order in the members of that Society and Laws for the governing it but we cannot hence gather that he hath bound up his Officers to act in any one form because several forms might in themselves equally tend to the promoting the end of Government in his Church And therefore what Christ hath expresly determined in his positive Laws must be our Rule of judging in this case and not any presumption of our own that such a form was necessary and therefore Christ must institute and appoint it Which is fully expressed by judicious Mr. Hooker whose words will serve as a sufficient answer to this Objection As for those marvellous Discourses whereby they adventure to argue that God must needs have done the thing which they imagine was to be done I must confesse I have often wondred at their exceeding boldnesse herein When the question is Whether God have delivered in Scripture as they affirm he hath a compleat particular immutable form of Church-Polity why take they that other both presumptuous and superfluous labour to prove he should have done it there being no way in this case to prove the deed of God saving only by producing that evidence wherein he hath done it But if there be no such thing apparent upon record they do as if one should demand a Legacy by force and vertue of some written Testament wherein there being no such thing specified he pleadeth that there it must needs be and bringeth arguments from the Love and good will which alwayes the Testator bore imagining that these or the like proofs will convict a Testament to have that in it which other men can no
where by reading find In matters which concern the actions of God the most dutiful way on our part is to search what God hath done and with meekness to admire that rather then to dispute what he in congruâ—ty of reason ought to do Thus he with more to the same purpose The sum then of the answer to this Argument is this That nothing can be inferred of what Christ must do from his relation to his Church but what is absolutely necessary to the being of it as for all other things they being arbitrary constitutions we can judge no more of the necessity of them then as we find them clearly revealed in the Word of God And therefore the Plea must be removed from what Christ must do to what he hath done in order to the determining the particular form of Government in his Church But still it is argued for the necessity of a particular form of Government in the Church from the similitudes the Church is set out by in Scripture It is called a Vine and therefore must have Keepers an House and therefore must have Government a City and therefore must have a Polity a Body and therefore must have Parts I answer First All these Similitudes prove only that which none deny that there must be Order Power and Government in the Church of God we take not away the Keepers from the Vine nor the Government from the House nor Polity from the City nor distinction of parts from the Body we assert all these things as necessary in the Church of God The keepers of the Vine to defend and prune it the Governours of the House to rule and order it the Polity of the City to guide and direct it the parts of the Body to compleat and adorn it But Secondly None of these Similitudes prove what they are brought for viz. that any one immutable form of Government is determined For may not the Keepers of the Vine use their own discretion in looking to it so the flourishing of the Vine be that they aym at and if there be many of them may there not be different orders among them and some as Supervisors of the others work The House must have Governours but those that are so are entrusted with the power of ordering things in the House according to their own discretion and where there is a multitude is there not diversity of Offices among them and is it necessary that every House must have Offices of the same kind In great and large Families there must be more particular distinct Orders and Offices than in a small and little one The City must have its Polity but all Cities have not the like some have one form and some another and yet there is a City still and a Polity too A body must have all its parts but are all the parts of the body equal one to another it sufficeth that there be a proportion though not equality in them the several parts of the body have their several offices and yet we see the head is superintendent over them all and thus if we make every particular Church a Body yet it follows not that the form of cloathing that Body must alwayes be the same for the manner of Government is rather the cloathing to the Body than the parts of it the Governours indeed are parts of the Body but their manner of governing is not that may alter according to the proportion and growth of the Body and its fashion change for better conveniency But if these Similitudes prove nothing yet certainly say they the difference as to Civil and Ecclesiastical Government will for though there may be different forms in civil Government which are therefore call'd an Ordinance of man yet there must be but one in Church-Government which is an Ordinance of God and Christ hath appointed Officers to rule it I answer first We grant and acknowledge a difference between the Church and the Common-wealth they are constituted for other ends the one Political the other Spiritual one temporal the other eternal they subsist by different Charters the one given to men as men the other to men as Christians They act upon different principles the one to preserve civil Rights the other to promote an eternal Interest nay their formal constitution is different for a man by being a member of a Common-wealth doth not become a Member of the Church and by being excommunicated out of the Church doth not cease to be a Member of the Common-wealth The Officers of the one are clearly distinct from the other the one deriving their power from the Law of Christ the other from Gods general Providence the Magistrate hath no power to Excommunicate formally out of the Church any more then to admit into it nor have the Church-officers any power to cast men out of the common-wealth We see then there is a difference between Civil and Ecclesiastical Government But then I answer Secondly The power of the Magistrate is not therefore called an Ordinance of man because of the mutability of its Form and as distinguished from the Form of Church-government For First The Apostle speaks not of the Form of Government but of the Power Submit to every Ordinance of man c. the ground of Submission is not the form but the power of civil government and therefore there can be no opposition expressed here between the Forms of Civil and Ecclesiastical government but if any such opposition be it must be between the powers and if this be said as to civils that the power is an Ordinance of Man in that sense whereas Paul saith it is of God yet as to the Church it is freely acknowledged that the Power is derived from God Secondly The civil power is not called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 because it is a creature of mans making and so subject to mens power but the ground of that Speech is because all civil power respects men as men without any further connotation Humana dicitur non quod ab hominibus sit excogitata sed quod hominum sit propria saith Beza And to the same purpose Calvin Humana dicitur Ordinatio non quod humanitùs inventa fuerit sed quod propria hominum est digesta ordinata vivendi ratio Piscator Humanam appellat non quod magistratus homines authores habeat sed quod Homines eam gerant So then the civil power is not called an Ordinance of man as it is of mans setting up but as it is proper to man and so if there be any opposition between the civil and Church power it is onely this that the one belongs to men as men the other to men as Christians Thirdly Although it be granted that Christ hath appointed and set up his own Officers in his Church yet it doth not thence follow that he hath determined in what manner they shall Rule his Church It is true Christ hath set up in his Church some Apostles some
exercise of this power is not any unlawfulnesse in the thing but the preserving of order and conveniency in the Church of God This being premised I say Secondly That the officers of the Church may in a peculiar manner attribute a larger and more extensive power to some particular persons for the more convenient exercise of their common power We have seen already that their power extends to the care of the Churches in common that the restraint of this power is a matter of order and decency in the Church of God Now in matters of common concernment without all question it is not unlawful when the Church judgeth it most for Edification to grant to some the executive part of that power which is Originally and Fundamentally common to them all For our better understanding of this we must consider a twofold power belonging to Church-Officers a power of Order and a power of jurisdiction for in every Presbyter there are some things inseparably joyned to his Function and belonging to every one in his personal capacity both in actu primo and in actu secundo both as to the right and power to do it and the exercise and execution of that power such are preaching the Word visiting the sick administring Sacraments c. But there are other things which every Presbyter hath an aptitude and a jus to in actu primo but the limitation and exercise of that power doth belong to the Church in common and belong not to any one personally but by a further power of choice or delegation to it such is the power of visiting Churches taking care that particular Pastors discharge their duty such is the power of ordination and Church censures and making Rules for decency in the Church this is that we call the power of jurisdiction Now this latter power though it belongs habitually and in actu primo to every Presbyter yet being about matters of publike and common concernment some further Authority in a Church constituted is necessary besides the power of order and when this power either by consent of the Pastors of the Church or by the appointment of a Christian Magistrate or both is devolved to some particular persons though quoad aptitudinem the power remain in every Presbyter yet quoad executionem it belongs to those who are so appointed And therefore Camero determins that Ordinatio non fit à pastore quatenus pastor est sed quatenus ad tempus singularem authoritatem obtinet i. e. That Ordination doth not belong to the Power of Order but to the Power of Jurisdiction and therefore is subject to Positive restraints by Prudential Determinations By this we may understand how lawfull the Exercise of an Episcopal Power may be in the Church of God supposing an equality in all Church-Officers as to the Power of Order And how incongruously they speak who supposing an equality in the Presbyters of Churches at first do cry out that the Church takes upon her the Office of Christ if she delegates any to a more peculiar Exercise of the power of Jurisdiction The last thing pleaded why an immutable Form of Church-Government must be laid down in Scripture is from the perfection and sufficiency of the Scriptures because otherwise the Scriptures would be condemned of imperfection But this will receive an easie dispatch For First The Controversie about the perfection of the Scriptures is not concerning an essential or integral Perfection but a perfection ratione finis effectuum in order to its end now the end of it is to be an adaequate Rule of Faith and Manners and sufficient to bring men to salvation which it is sufficiently acknowledged to be if all things necessary to be believed or practised be contained in the Word of God now that which we assert not to be fully laid down in Scripture is not pleaded to be any wayes necessary nor to be a matter of Faith but something left to the Churches Liberty but here it is said by some that this is adding to the Law of God which destroyes the Scriptures perfection therefore I answer Secondly Whatever is done with an Opinion of the necessity of doing it destroyes the Scriptures perfection if it be not contained in it for that were to make it an imperfect Rule and in this sense every additio perficiens is additio corrumpens because it takes away from the perfection of the Rule which it is added to and thus Popish Traditions are destructive of the Scriptures sufficiency But the doing of any thing not positively determined in Scripture not looking upon it as a thing we are bound to do from the necessity of the thing and observing the general Rules of Scripture in the doing it is far from destroying the perfection or sufficiency of the Word of God Thirdly All essentials of Church-Government are contained clearly in Scripture The essentials of Church-Government are such as are necessary to the preservation of such a Society as the Church is Now all these things have been not only granted but proved to be contained in Scripture but whatever is not so necessary in its self can only become necessary by vertue of Gods express command and what is not so commanded is accidental and circumstantial and a matter of Christian liberty and such we assert the Form of Church-Government to be It is not our work to enquire why God hath determined some things that might seem more circumstantial than this and left other things at liberty but whether God hath determined these things or no. Which determination being once cleared makes the thing so commanded necessary as to our observance of it but if no such thing be made appear the thing remains a matter of liberty and so the Scriptures perfection as to necessaries in order to Salvation is no wayes impeached by it So much now for the necessity of Christs determining the particular form of Government We now proceed to the consideration of Christs Actions whether by them the form of Church-Government is determined or no CHAP. V. Whether any of Christs Actions have determined the Form of Government All Power in Christs hands for Governing his Church What order Christ took in order thereto when he was in the World Calling Apostles the first action respecting outward Government The Name and Office of Apostles cleared An equality among them proved during our Saviours life Peter not made Monarch of the Church by Christ. The Apostles Power over the seventy Disciples considered with the nature and quality of their Office Matth. 20. 25 26 27. largely discussed and explained It makes not all inequality in Church Officers unlawful by the difference of Apostles and Pastors of Churches Matth. 18. 15. How far that determins the Form of Church-Government No evidence of any exact Order for Church-Government from thence Matth. 16. 15 16 17 18. considered how far that concerns the Government of the Church HAving considered and answered the Arguments which are brought why Christ must
determine the particular Form of Government Our next task will be to enquire into those Actions of our Saviour which are conceived to have any plausible aspect towards the setling the Form of Government in his Church And were it not that men are generally so wedded to an hypothesis they have once drunk in by the prevalency of interest or education we might have been superseded from our former labour but that men are so ready to think that Opinion to be most necessary which they are most in love with and have appeared most zealous for Men are loth to be perswaded that they have spent so much breath to so little purpose and have been so hot and eager for somewhat which at last appears to be a matter of Christian liberty Therefore we finde very few that have been ever very earnest in the maintaining or promoting any matter of opinion but have laid more weight upon it than it would really bear lest men should think that with all their sweat and toile they only beat the ayr and break their Teeth in cracking a Nut with a hole in it which if they had been so wise as to discern before they might have saved their pains for somewhat which would have better recompenced them But thus it generally fares with men they suck in principles according as interest and education disposeth them which being once in have the advantage of insinuating themselves into the understanding and thereby raise a prejudice against whatever comes to disturb them which prejudice being the Yellow-jaundise of the Soul leaves such a tincture upon the eyes of the Understanding that till it be cured of that Icterism it cannot discern things in their proper colours Now this prejudice is raised by nothing more strongly than when the opinion received is entertained upon a presumption that there is a Divine stamp and Impress upon it though no such Effigies be discernable there Hence come all the several contending parties about Church-Government equally to plead an interest in this Ius Divinum and whatever opinion they have espoused they presently conceive it to be of no lesse than Divine extract and Original And as it sometimes was with great personages among the Heathens when their miscarriages were discernable to the eye of the World the better to palliate them among the vulgar they gave themselves out to be impreguated by some of their adored Deities so I fear it hath been among some whose Religion should have taught them better things when either faction design or interest hath formed some conceptions within them suitable thereunto to make them the more passable to the World they are brought forth under the pretence of Divine Truths Far be it from me to charge any sincere humble sober Christians with an offence of so high a nature who yet may be possessed with some mistakes and apprehensions of this nature but these are only wrought on by the Masters of parties who know unlesse they fly so high they shall never hit the game they aym at This is most discernable in the Factors for the Roman Omnipotency as Paulus the fifth was call'd Omnipotentiae Pontificiâ— Conservaton they who see not that Interest and Faction upholds that Court rather then Church may well be presumed to be hood-winked with more then an implicite Faith and yet if we believe the great supporters of that Interest the power they plead for is plainly given them from Christ himself and not only offer to prove that it was so but that it was not consistent with the Wisdom of Christ that it should be otherwise Lest I should seem to wrong those of any Religion hear what the Author of the Gloss upon the Extravagants so they may be well called saith to this purpose applying that place of our Saviour all power is given to me in heaven and earth Matthew 28. 18. to the Pope adds these words Non videretur Dominus discretas fuisse ut cum reverentia ejus loquar nisi unicum post se talem Vicarium reliquisset qui hac omnia posset We see by this what blasphemies men may run into when they argue from their private fancies and opinions to what must be done by the Law of Christ. It therefore becomes all sober Christians impartially to enquire what Christ hath done and to ground their opinions only upon that without any such presumptuous intrusions into the Counsels of Heaven We here therefore take our leave of the Dispute Why it was necessary a form of Government should be established and now enter upon a survey of those grounds which are taken from any passages of our Saviour commonly produced as a Foundation for any particular Forms I shall not stand to prove that Christ as Mediator hath all the power over the Church in his own hands it being a thing so evident from Scripture and so beyond all dispute with those whom I have to deal with In which respect he is the only Head of the Church and from whom all divine Right for authority in the church must be derived Which Right can arise only from some actions or Laws of Christ which we therefore now search into The first publike action of Christ after his solemn entrance upon his Office which can be conceived to have any reference to the Government of his Church was the calling the Apostles In whom for our better methodizing this Discourse we shall observe these three â—everal steps First When they were called to be Christs Disciples Secondly When Christ sent them out with a power of Miracles Thirdly When he gave them their full commission of acting with Apostolical power all the world over These three seasons are accurately to be distinguished for â—he Apostles did not enjoy so great power when they were â—isciples as when they were sent abroad by Christ neither had â—hey any proper power of Church-government after that â—â—nding forth till after Christs Resurrection when Christ told â—hem All power was put into his hands and therefore gave them â—â—ll commission to go and preach the Gospel to all Nations The first step then we observe in the Apostles towards their power of Church-government was in their first calling to be Disciples Two several calls are observed in Scripture concerning the Apostles The first was more general when they were called only to follow Christ The second more special when Christ told them what he called them to and specified and described their Office to them by telling them he would make them Fishers of Men. We shall endeavour to digest the Order of their calling as clearly and as briefly as we â—an Our blessed Saviour about the thirtieth year of his age solemnly entering upon the discharge of his prophetical Office in making known himself to be the true Messias to the World to make his appearance more publike goes to Iordan and is there baptized of Iohn presently after he is led up by the Spirit into the Wildernesse where he
from whom they derived their power and by whose authority they acted And these were the most suitable to them as making it appear that a Divine presence went along with them and therefore they could not salsifie to the world in what they Declared unto them which was the best way for them to evidence the Truth of their Doctrine because it was not to be discovered by the Evidence of the things themselves but it depended upon the Testimony of the Authour and therefore the onely way to confirm the truth of the Doctrine was to confirm the credibility of the Authour which was best done by doing something above what the power of nature could reach unto And this was the prerogative of the Apostles in their first mission above Iohn the Baptist For of him it is said that he did no miracle Fourthly we observe that the Apostles in this mission were invested in no power over the Church nor in any Superiority of Order one over another The first is evident because Christ did not now send them abroad to gather Churches but onely to call persons to the Doctrine of the Messias and while Christ was in the World among them he retained all Church power and authority in his own hand When this temporary mission expired the Apostles lived as private persons still under Christs Tutorage and we never read them acting in the least as Church-Officers all that while Which may appear from this one argument because all the time of our Saviours being in the World he never made a total separation from the Iewish Church but frequented with his Disciples the Temple worship and Service to the last although he super-added many Gospel Observations to those of the Law And therefore when no Churches were gathered the Apostles could have no Church power over them All that can be pleaded then in order to Church-Government from the consideration of the Form of Government as setled by our Saviour must be either from a supposed inequality among the Apostles themselves or their superiority over the LXX Disciples or from some Rules laid down by Christ in order to the Government of his Church of which two are the most insisted on Matthew 20. 25. Matth. 18. 17. Of these in their Order The first argument drawn for an established form of Government in the Church from the state of the Apostles under Christ is from a supposed inequality among the Apostles and the superiority of one as Monarch of the Church which is the Papists Plea from Saint Peter as the chief and head of the Apostles Whose loud Exclamations for Saint Peters authority aâ—â— much of the same nature with those of Demetrius the Silver-Smith at Ephesus with his fellow craftsmen who cried up Great is Diana of the Ephesians not from the honor they bore to her as Diana but from the gain which came to them from her worship at Ephesus But I dispute not now the entail of Saint Peters power what ever it was to the Roman Bishop but I onely inquire into the Pleas drawn for his authority from the Scriptures which are written in so small a character that without the spectacles of an implicite Faith they will scarce appear legible to the Eyes of men For what though Christ changed Saint Peters name must it therefore follow that Christ baptized him Monarch of his Church Were not Iohn and Iames called by Christ Boanerges and yet who thinks that those sons of Thunder must therefore overturn all other power but their own Christ gave them new names to shew his own authority over them and not their authority over others to be as Monitors of their Duty and not as Instruments to convey power So Chrysostome speaks of the very name Peter given to Simon it was to shew him his duty of being fixed and stable in the Faith of Christ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 this name might be as a string upon his finger a continual remembrancer of his duty And likewise I conceive as an incouragement to him after his fall that he should recover his former stability again else it should seem strange that he alone of the Apostles should have his name from firmness and stability who fell the soonest and the foulest of any of the Apostles unlesse it were 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which would be worse Divinity then Rhetorick The change then of St Peters name imports no such Universall Power neither from the change nor from the name But why then hath Saint Peter the honour to be named first of all the Apostles First it seems to be implyed as an honour given to Peter above the rest But doth all honour carry an Universal power along with it there may be order certainly among equals and there may be first second and third c. where there is no imparity and jurisdiction in the first over all the rest Primacy of Order as among equals I know none will deny Saint Peter A Primacy of Power as over Inferiours I know none will grant but such as have subdued their Reason to their Passion and Interest Nay a further Order then of mâ—er place may without danger be attributed to him A Primacy in Order of Time as being of the first called and it may be the first who adhered to Christ in Order of Age of which Ierome aetati delatum quia Petrus senior erat speaking of Peter and Iohn nay yet higher some Order of Dignity too in regard of his 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which the Greek Fathers speak so much of the servency and heat of his spirit whence by Eusebius he is called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Prolocutor among the Apostles who was therefore most forward to inquire most ready to answer which Chrysostome elegantly calls 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 alluding to the name 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which are frequently given to Peter by the Fathers which import no more then praesultor in choreâ he that that led the dance among the Disciples but his being 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 implies no Superiority of Power For Dyonys Haliarnass calls Appius Claâ—dius 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 whereas all know that the Decemviri had an equality of power among themselves Neither doth his being as the mouth of the Disciples imply his power For Aaron was a mouth to Moses but Moses was Aarons Master Neither yet doth this Primacy of Order alwayes hold in reference to Peter For although generally he is named first of the Aposties as Matthew 10. 2. Mark 3. 16. Acts 1. 13. Mark 1. 36. Luk 8. 45. Acts 2. 14. 37. Yet in other places of Scripture we finde other Apostles set in Order before him as Iames Galat. 2. 9. Paul and Apollos and others 1 Cor. 3. 22. 1 Cor. 1. 12. 9. 5. No Argument then can be drawn hence if it would hold but onely a Primacy of Order and yet even that fails too in the Scriptures changing of the Order so often
But say they whatever becomes of this Order we have a strong Foundation for Saint Peters Power because Christ said he would build his Church upon him Matth. 16. 17. This were something indeed if it were proved but I fear this Rock will not hold water as it is brought by them nor Saint Peter prove to be that Rock For indeed Was the Church built upon Saint Peter then he must be the chief Foundation stone and Peter must build upon himself and not upon Christ and all the Apostles upon him and thus in exalting the Servant we depress the Master and in setting a new Foundation we take away the only Foundation Iesus Christ. If by being built upon Peter they mean no more then being built by him as the chief Instrument it is both a very incongruous Speech and implies nothing more then what was common to him and the rest of the Apostles who were all Master-builders in the Church of Christ as Paul calls himself and in that respect are set forth as the twelve Foundation stones in the walls of the New Ierusalem The Rock then spoken of by Christ in his Speech to Peter if taken Doctrinally was Saint Peters Confession as many of the Fathers interpret it if taken personally it was none other but Christ himself who used a like Speech to this when he said Destroy this Temple and in three dayes I will raise it up Which words though spoken by occasion of the material Temple as those were of Peters name yet Christ understood them of the Temple of his Body as here likewise he doth of his person But still they urge Christ put the Keyes into Saint Peters hands Matthew 16. 19. Now the power of the Keyes doth denote Regal Authority I answer First The Keyes may be given two wayes either from a Prince to a Subject or from a City to a Prince In this latter acception they denote principality in the Receiver but withall inferiority and subjection in the Given and in this sense I am so charitable as to think they will not say that Christ gave the Keyes to Peter it must be then as a Prince to a Subject and when they are so given it doth not imply an universal power in the persons to whom they are given but an investing them in that particular place he hath appointed them to the Office which the power of the Keyes implies is Ministerial and not Authoritative Delarative and not Iuridical over persons committed to their charge and not over Officers joyned inâ—equality of power with them For so were the rest of the Apostles with Peter in the same power of the Keyes Matth. 18. 18. Iohn 20. 23. This-power of the Keyes then was given to Peter in a peculiar manner but nothing peculiar to him given thereby But still there remains another Ward in Saint Peters Keyes and the last foot to the Popes Chair which is Pasce oves Feed my sheep a charge given particularly to Peter Iohn 21. 15. Thence they infer his Power over the whole Church But this foot hath neither joynts nor sinews in it and is as infirm as any of the rest sor neither did this Command rather then Commission belong onely to Peter for Christ had before given them all their general Commission As the Father hath sent me even so send I you John 20 21. whereby is implied an investing all the Apostles equally with the power and authority of Governing the Church of God although this charge be peculiarly renewed to Peter because as he had particularly faln so he should be particularly restored neither yet did we grant this doth the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 imply such a Power and authority as they plead for viz. A Supream power over the Church of God for this even by Peter himself is attributed to the fixed Presbyters of the Churches who by this argument have as much authority conveyed them as Saint Peter had 1 Pet. 5. 2. and yet should we grant this it would not infer what they desire for these sheep were not the whole Church of Christ taken absolutely but Indefinitely For all the Apostles had a command to preach to every Creature Matth. 28. 18. which was as to the words larger as to the Sense the same with that to Saint Peter here And afterwards we find Peter called the Apostle of Circumcision and the Apostles sending him to Samaria and Paul in the right hand of fellowship with Peter which had been certainly dishonourable to Peter had he been invested with such an Universal Supream Power over the Apostles and the whole Church Such pretences then as these are for such an Extravagant power in the Church of God from such miserably weak Foundations for the upholding a corrupt Interest have given the occasion to that tart Sarcasm In Papatu sub Petri nudo nomine Satan non amplius Larva But that which would seem sufficient to awaken any out of this dream of Saint Peters power over the rest of the Apostles is the frequent contendings of the twelve Apostles one among another Who should be the greatest and that even after that Christ had said Upon this Rock will I build my Church as we may see Matthew 20 24. If Christ had conferred such a power on Saint Peter what little ground had there been for the request of Iames and Iohn and would not our Saviour rather have told them the chiefest place was conserred on Peter already then have curbed their ambition in seeking who should be greatest and would have bid them be subject to Peter as their Head and Ruler We see not then the least foundation for an universal Monarchy in the Church of God and so this form of Government is not determined by any actions or commands of Christ. We come now to consider the pleas of others who joyn in renouncing any Supream power under Christ over the Church of God but differ as to the particular forms of Government in the Church those who are for an inequality usually fix on the imparity between the Apostles and the LXX Those that are for a parity upon Matth. 20. 25. and Matth. 18. 17. I shall here proceed in the former method to shew that none of those can prove the Form they contend for as only necessary nor their adversaries prove it unlawful First then for the inequality between the Apostles and the LXX Disciples by that inequality is meant either only an inequality of order or else an inequality carrying superiority and subordination It is evident that the LXX disciples were not of the same Order with the twelve Apostles whom Christ had designed for the chief Government of his Church after his Ascension and in this respect the comparison of the twelve heads of the Tribes and the seventy Elders seems parallel with the twelve Apostles and the LXX disciples but if by imparity be meant that the twelve Apostles had a superiority of power and jurisdiction over the LXX disciples
therefore inforceth this Law upon them in case of offences first to deal plainly with their Neighbour in reproving him but our Saviour rests not here but being himself a pattern of Meeknesse and Charity he would not have them to rest in a bare private admonition but to shew their own readinesse to be reconciled and willingnesse to do good to the Soul of the offending party thereby he adviseth further to take two or three witnesses with them hoping thereby to work more upon him but if still he continues refractory and is not sensible of his miscarriage Tell it the Church What the Church here is is the great Controversie Some as Beza and his followers understand an Ecclesiastical Sanhedrin among the Jews which had the proper cognizance of Ecclesiastical causes but it will be hard to prove any such Sanhedrin in use among them the Priests and Levites indeed were very often chosen into the Sanhedrin which it may be is the ground of the mistake but there was no such Sanhedrin among them which did not respect matters criminal and civil So we must understand what Iosephus speaks of the Priests among the Jews 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Priests were alwayes very studious of the Law and other matters of concernment These were appointed as the Overseers of all things Iudges of Controversies and the punishers of condemned persons Thus we see he is so far from attributing a distinct Ecclesiastical Court to them that he seems to make them the only Judges in civil and criminal causes Others by the Church understand the Christian Church but herein they are divided some understanding by it only the Officers of the Church so Chrysostome 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Euthemius Ecclesiam nunc vocat prasides fidelium Ecclesiae Others understand it not in its representative notion but in its diffusive capacity as taking in all the members But our Saviour speaking to a present case must be supposed to lay down a present remedy which could not be if he gave only Rules for governing his Church which was not as yet gathered nor formed there being then no Court Ecclesiastical for them to appeal unto Suppose then this case to have fallen out immediately after our Saviours speaking it that one brother should trespasse against another either then notwithstanding our Saviours Speech which speaks to the present time Go and tell the Church the offended brother is left without a power of redresse or he must understand it in some sense of the word Church which was then in use among the Jews And these who tell us That unless 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 be understood for a Church as we understand it it would be no easie matter for us now to conceive what the Holy Ghost meant by it would do well withall to consider how those to whom Christ spoke should apprehend his meaning if he spoke in a sense they never heard of before And certainly our best way to understand the meaning of Scripture is to consider what of whom to whom the Scripture speaks for although the Scripture as a Rule of Faith for us be supposed to be so written as to be easily understood by us yet as the parcels of it were spoken upon several Occasions they must be supposed to be so spoken as to be apprehended by them to whom they were spoken in the common senss of the words if nothing peculiar be expressed in the Speech whereby to restrain them to another sense And therefore the Church must be understood in the same sense wherein the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or the Syriack answering to it was apprehended among the Jewes in our Saviours time Which could not be for any new Consistory or Sanhedrin to be erected under the Gospel Thence others conceiving that Christ did speak according to the Custome of the Jewes by the Church understand nothing else but the Sanhedrin and so make the sense of the words to be this The Case our Saviour speaks to is that of private Quarrels wherein our Saviour layes down two Directions in a way of Charity private admonition and before witnesses but if the party continues refractory then it may be lawful to convent him before the Courts of Judicature among them the Triumvirate the 23. or the great Sanhedrin for although the Romans had taken away the power of the Iewes in Capital matters yet they allowed them liberty of judgeing in the case of private quarrels but if he neglect to hear the Sanhedrin then it may be lawful to implead him before the Governour of the Province in his Court of Judicature by which Heathens and Publicans were to be judged which is meant by Let him be to thee not as a brother Jew but as a Heathen and a Publican This Exposition is said to be first Broached by Erastus but much improved and enlarged by Reverend Bishop Bilson who spends a whole Chapter upon it But this Exposition though it seems fair and plausible yet there are several things in it which keep me from imbracing it as First It seems not very probable that our Saviour should send his Disciples to whom he speaks to the Jewish Sanhedrin for the ending any Controversies arising among themselves knowing how bitter Enemies they wer to all who were the followers of Christ. Secondly it seems not very agreeable with the scope of our Saviours Speech which was to take up differences as much as may be among his Disciples and to make them shew all lenity and forherance towards those that had offended them and to do good to the Souls of those that had injured and provoked them whereas this command of telling the Sanhedrin and inpleading offendors before Heathen Courts tends apparently to heighten the bitterness and animosities of Mens spirits one against another and layes Religion so open to Obloquies which makes Paul so severely reprove the Christians at Corinth for going to Law before Heathen Magistrates therefore to say that Christ allows there going to Law before Heathens and Paul to forbid it were instead of finding a way to end the differences among Christians to make one between Christ and Paul Thirdly the thing chiefly aimed at by Christ is not a mans Vindication of himself or recovering losses by injuries received but the recovering and gaining the offending brother which evidently appears by what our Saviour adds to the using admonition in private If he shall hear thee thou hast gained thy brother Now 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the New Testament is used for the Conversion and turning others from sin That I might gain them that are under the Law 1 Corinth 9. 19 20 c. So 1 Pet. 3. 1. explained by Iames 5. 20. Our Saviour then speaks not to the manner of proceeding as to civil injuries which call for Restitution but to such as call for Reconciliation And so the Case I conceive is that of private Differences and Quarrels between men and not Law-Suites nor civil Causes I
28. 18. What the Apostles did in order to the Church Government before Pentecost 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 explained How the Apostles did divide Provinces whether Paul and Peter were confined to the circumcision and uncircumcision and different Churches erected by them in the same Cities What the Apostles did in order to settling particular Churches The Names and Office of Bishops Presbyters Deacons considered Four general Considerations laid down about the Apostles practice First It cannot be fully known what is was 2. Great probability they observe no one certain Form in setling Churches proved from Epiphanius Ierome Ambrose or Hilary 3. Their Case different from ours in regard of the paucity of Believers 4. If granted for any Form yet proves not the thing in question For 1. Offices appointed by them are ceased Widdows Deaconesses abolished 2. Rites and Customs Apostolical grown out of use 1. Such as were founded upon Apostolical Precepts Acts 15. 29. considered 2. Such as were grounded on their practice Holy kiss Love-feasts dipping in Baptism community of goods with several others HAving found nothing either in our Saviours practice or in the rules laid down by him conceived to respect Church-Government which determines any necessity of one particular Form the onely argument remaining which can be conceived of sufficient strength to found the necessity of any one form of Government is the practice of the Apostles who were by their imployment and commission entrusted with the Government of the Church of God For our Saviour after his Resurrection taking care for the Planting and Governing of his Church after his Ascension to Glory doth at two several times call his Apostles together and gives now their full Charter and Commission to them the first containing chiefly the power it self conferred upon them Iohn 20. 21. The other the Extent of that power Matth. 28. 19. In the former our Saviour tells them As the Father had sent him so did he send them Which we must not understand of a parity and equality of Power but in a similitude of the mission that as Christ before had managed the great affairs of his Church in his own Person so now having according to the Prophecies made of him at the end of seventy weeks made Reconciliation for iniquity by his Death and brought in everlasting Righteousness by his Resurrection He dispatcheth abroad his Gospel Heralds to proclaim the Iubilee now begun and the Act of Indempnity now past upon all penitent Offendors which is the Sense of the other part of their Commission Whosoever sins ye remit they are remitted and whosoever sins ye retain they are retained John 20. 23. i. e. as many as upon the Preaching the Gospel by you shall come in and yield up themselves to the tenders of Grace proclaimed therein shall have their former Rebellions pardoned but such as will still continue obstinate their former guilt shall still continue to bind them over to deserved punishment And to the end the Apostles might have some Evidence of the power thus conferred upon them He breathes the Holy Ghost on them and said Receive ye the Holy Ghost which we are not to understand of the Extraordinary gifts of the Holy Ghost which were not received till the day of Pentecost Act. 2. 1. but of the Authoritative power of preaching the Gospel which was now conferred upon them by the solemn Rite of breathing the Holy Ghost on the Apostles In which Sense the Church of England understands that Expression in the Ordination of Ministers as it implies onely the conferring thereby an authority for the preaching of the Gospel which being conveyed by Ordination is fitly expressed by the same wordâ— which our Saviour used in the conferring the same Power upon his Apostles at his sending them forth to be Gospel-Preachers After this comes the solemn appointed meeting of Christ with his Disciples at the mountain of Galilee where in probability besides the eleven were present the five hundered Brethren at once And here Christ more solemnly inaugurates the Apostles in their Office declaring all power to be in his hands and therefore appoints the Apostles to preach the Gospel to every creature that is to all men indefinitely Gentiles as well as Jewes which Matthew fully expresseth by all Nations Now are the Apostles left as chief Governours of the Church under Christ and in this last Commission wherein the extent of the Apostles power is more fully expressed there is nothing mentioned of any order for the Government of the Church under them not what course should be taken by the Church after their decease All that remains then to be inquired into is what the Apostles practice was and how far they acted for the determining any one form of Government as necessary for the Church The Apostles being thus invested in their authority we proceed to consider the Exercise of this authority for the Governing of the Church And here we are to consider that the Apostles did not presently upon their last Commission from Christ goe forth abroad in the World to Preach but were commanded by Christ to go first to Ierusalem and there to expect the coming of the Holy Ghost according to our Saviours own appointment Luke 24. 49. And therefore what Mark adds Mark 16. 20. that after Christs appearance to them the Apostles went abroad and preached every where working Miracles must either be understood of what they did onely in their way returning from Galile oo Ierusalem or else more probably of what they did indefinitely afterwarps For presently after we find them met together at Ierusalem whence they came from Mount Olivet where Christs Ascension was Here we find them imployed 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 saith Saint Luke in his Gospel which we render the Temple but I understand it rather as referring to the action than the place and is best explained by what Luke saith in Acts 1. 14. they were 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 continuing in Prayer and Supplication And that it cannot be meant of the Temple appears by the mention of the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 an upper room where they continued together For that it should be meant of any of the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 about the Temple is most improbable to conceive because not only those ninty Cells about the Temple were destined and appointed for the Priests in their several 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or times of Ministration and it is most unlikely the chief Priests and Masters of the Temple should suffer those whom they hated so much to continue â—o near them without any molestation or disturbance While the Apostles continue here they proceed to the choice of a new Apostle instead of Iudas thereby making it appear now necessary that number was to the first forming of Churches when the vacant place must be supplyed with so great solemnity Which office of Apostleship which Iudas once had and Matthias was now chosen into is call'd by Peter
let us see them at large Unto the Brethren which are of the Gentiles in Antioch and Syria and Cilicia There was nothing then peculiar to those of the Gentiles at Antioch more then in Syria and Cilicia and if those words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 imply a Coetus distinct of Gentile-Christians from the Jews at Antioch it must do so through all Syria and Cilicia which was Pauls Province and not Peters as appears by his travels in the Acts. Eâ—theâ— then the Apostle of the uncircumcision must form distinct Churches of Iews and Gentiles in his preaching through Syria and Silicia which is irreconcilable with the former pretence of distinct Provinces asserted by the same Author who pleads for distinct Coetus or the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 can imply no such thing as a distinct Church of Gentiles to whomsover it is spoken and so not at Antioch more then through all Syria and Silicia The plain ground then of the Apostles inscribing the order of the Council to the Brethren of the Gentiles was because the matter of that Order did particularly concern them and not the Jews as is obvious to any that will but cast an eye upon the 23 24 29. verses of the 15. of the Acts. As well might then an order supposed from the Apostles to the several Pastors of the Churches in things concerning them as such imply that they make distinct Churches from their people as this order concerning the Gentile Brethren being therefore directed to them doth imply their making distinct Churches from the Jewish Brethren in the Cities where they lived together What is further produced out of Antiquity to this purpose hath neither evidence nor pertinency enough to stop the passage of one who is returning from this digression to his former matter Although then we grant not any such distinct Coetus of the Jews from the Christians yet that hinders not but that both Jews and Christians joyning together in one Church might retain still the Synagogue form of Government among them which there was no reason at all why the Christians should scruple the using of either as Jews or Gentiles because it imported nothing either Typical and Ceremonial or heavy and burdensome which were the grounds why former customs in use among the Jews were laid aside by the Christians But instead of that it was most suitable and agreeable to the state of the Churches in Apostolical times which was the third consideration to make it probable that the Synagogue form of Government was used by the Christians And the suitablenesse of this Government to the Churches lay in the conveniency of it for the attaining all ends of Government in that condition wherein the Churches were at that time For Church Officers acting then either in gathering or governing Churches without any authority from Magistrates such a way of Government was most suitable to their several Churches as whereby the Churches might be governed and yet have no dependancy upon the secular power which the way of Government in the Synagogues was most convenient for for the Jews though they enjoyed a bare permission from the civil state where they lived yet by the exercise of their Synagogue Government they were able to order all affairs belonging to the service of God and to keep all members belonging to their several Synagogues in unity and peace among themselves The case was the same as to Synagogues and Churches these subsisted by the same permission which the others enjoyed the end of these was the service of God and preserving that order among them which might best become societies so constituted there can be no reason then assigned why the Apostles in setling particular Churches should not follow the Synagogue in its model of Government These things may suffice to make it appear probable that they did so which is all these considerations tend to Having thus prepared the way by making it probable I now further enquire into the particular part of Government and what orders in the Synagogue were which there is any evidence for that the Apostles did take up and follow Here I begin with the thing first propounded The orders of publick Worship which did much resemble those of the Synagogue Only with those alterations which did arise from the advancing of Christianity That the Christians had their publick and set meetings for the service of God is evident from the first rising of a society constituted upon the account of Christianity We read of the three thousand converted by Peters Sermon That they continued in the Apostles doctrine and fellowship and breaking of bread and prayers Where we have all that was observed in the Synagogue and somewhat more here there is publick joyning together implyed in the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 their solemn prayers expressed which were constantly observed in the Synagogue instead of reading the Sections of the Law and Prophets we have the Apostles teaching by immediate inspiration and to all these as the proper service of Christianity is set down the celebration of the Lords-supper which we shall seldome or ever in the Primitive Church read the publick service on Lords Dayes performed without During the Apostolical times in which there was such a Land-flood of extraordinary gifts overflowing the Church in the publick meeting we find those persons who were indued with those gifts to be much in exercising them as to the custom agreeing with the Synagogue but as to the gifts exceeding it concerning the ordering of which for the publick edification of the Church the Apostle Paul layes down so many Rules in the fourteenth Chapter to the Corinthians but assoon as this flood began to abate which was then necessary for the quicker softening the World for receiving Christianity the publick service began to run in its former channel as is apparent from the unquestionable testimonies of Iustin Martyr and Tertullian who most fully relate to us the order of publick Worship used among the Christians at that time Iustin Martyr the most ancient next to Clemens whose Epistle is lately recovered to the Christian World of the unquestionable Writers of the Primitive Church gives us a clear Narration of the publick Orders observed by the Church in his time 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Upon the Day call'd Sunday all the Christians whether in Town or Country assemble in the same place wherein the Memoires or Commentaries of the Apostles and the writings of the Prophets are read as long as the time will permit Then the Reader sitting down the President of the Assembly stands up and makes a Sermon of Instruction and Exhortation to the following so good Examples After this is ended we all stand up to prayers prayers ended the Bread Wine and Water are all brought forth then the President again praying and praising to his utmost ability the people testifie their consent by saying Amen What could have been spoken with greater congruity or correspondency to the Synagogue abating the
his Origines Ecclesiae Alexandrinae published in Arabick by our moâ—â— learned Selden who expresly affirms that the twelve Presbyters constituted by Mark upon the vacancy of the See did choose out of their number one to be head over the rest and the other eleven did lay their hands upon him and blessed him and made him Patriarch Neither is the authority of Eutychius so much to be sleighted in this case coming so near to Hierom as he doth who doubtless had he told us that Mark and Anianus c. did all there without any Presbyters might have had the good fortune to have been quoted with as much frequency and authority as the Anonymous Author of the martyrdome of Timothy in Photius who there unhappily follows the story of the seven sleepers or the Author of the Apostolical Constitutions whose credit is everlastingly blasted by the excellent Mr. Duille De Pseudepigraphis Apostolorum so much doth mens interestâ—tend to the inhancing or abating the esteem and credit both of the dead and the living By these we see that where no positive restraints from consent and choice for the unity and peace of the Church have restrained mens liberty as to their external exercise of the power of order or jurisdiction every one being himself advanced into the authority of a Church Governour hath an internal power of conferring the same upon persons fit for it To which purpose the laying on of the hands of the Presbytery is no wayes impertinently alledged although we suppose St. Paul to concur in the action as it is most probable he did because if the Presbytery had nothing to do in the ordination to what purpose were their hands laid upon him Was it only to be witnesses of the fact or to signifie their consent both those might have been done without their use of that ceremony which will scarce be instanced in to be done by any but such as had power to confer what was signified by that ceremony We come therefore to the second period or state of the Church when the former liberty was restrained by some act of the Church it self for preventing the inconveniences which might follow the too common use of the former liberty of ordinations So Antonius de Rosellis fully expresseth my meaning in this Quilibet Presbyter Presbyteri ordinabant indiscretè schismata oriebantur Every Presbyter and Presbyters did ordain indifferently and thence arose schisms thence the liberty was restrained and reserved peculiarly to some persons who did act in the several Presbyteries as the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Prince of the Sanhedrin without whose presence no ordination by the Church was to be looked on as regular The main controversie is when this restraint began and by whose act whether by any act of the Apostles or only by the prudence of the Church its self as it was with the Sanhedrin But in order to our peace I see no such necessity of deciding it both parties granting that in the Church such a restraint was laid upon the liberty of ordaining Presbyters and the exercise of that power may be restrained still granting it to be radically and intrinsically in them So that this controversie is not such as should divide the Church For those that are for ordinations only by a Superiour order in the Church acknowledging a radical power for ordination in Presbyters which may be exercised in case of necessity do thereby make it evident that none who grant that do think that any positive Law of God hath forbidden Presbyters the power of ordination for then it must be wholly unlawful and so in case of necessity it cannot be valid Which Doctrine I dare with some confidence assert to be a stranger to our Church of England as shall be largely made appear afterwards On the other side those who hold ordinations by Presbyters lawful do not therefore hold them necessary but it being a matter of liberty and not of necessity Christ having no where said that none but Presbyters shall ordain this power then may be restrained by those who have the care of the Churches Peace and matters of liberty being restrained ought to be submitted to in order to the Churches Peace And therefore some have well observed the difference between the opinions of Hierom and Aerius For as to the matter it self I believe upon the strictest enquiry Medina's judgement will prove true that Hierom Austin Ambrose Sedulius Primasius Chrysostome Theodores Theophylact were all of Aerius his judgement as to the Identity of both name and order of Bishops and Presbyters in the Primitive Church but here lay the difference Aerius from hence proceeded to separation from Bishops and their Churches because they were Bishops And Blondell well observes that the main ground why Aerius was condemned was for unnecessary separation from the Church of Sebastia and those Bishops too who agreed with him in other things as Eustathius the Bishop did Whereas had his meer opinion about Bishops been the ground of his being condemned there can be no reason assigned why this heresie if it were then thought so was not mentioned either by Socrates Theodoret Sozomen or Evagrius before whose time he lived when yet they mention the Eustathiani who were co-temporaries with him But for Epiphanius and Augustine who have listed him in the roul of Hereticks it either was for the other heretical opinions maintained by him or they took the name Heretick as it is evident they often did for one who upon a matter of different opinion from the present sense of the Church did proceed to make separation from the Unity of the Catholick Church which I take to be the truest account of the reputed Heresie of Aerius For otherwise it is likely that Ierome who maintained so great correspondency and familiarity with Epiphanius and thereby could not but know what was the cause why Aerius was condemned for Heresie should himself run into the same Heresie and endeavour not only to assert it but to avouch and maintain it against the Judgement of the whole Church Ierome therefore was not ranked with Aerius because though he held the same opinion as to Bishops and Presbyters yet he was far from the consequence of Aerius that therefore all Bishops were to be separated from nay he was so far from thinking it necessary to cause a schism in the Church by separating from Bishops that his opinion is clear that the first institution of them was for preventing schisms and therefore for peace and unity he thought their institution very useful in the Church of God And among all those fifteen testimonies produced by a learned Writer ouâ— of Ierome for the superiority of Bishopâ— above Presbyters I cannot find one that doth found it upon any Divine Right but only upon the conveniency of such an order for the peace and unity of the Church of God Which is his meaning in that place most produced to this purpose Ecclesiae salus
toto orbe decretum ut unus de Presbyteris electus superponeretur caeteris Quomodo enim saith a learned man fieri poâ—uit ut toto hoc orbe decerneretur nullo jam Oecumenico Concilio ad illud decernendum congregaâ—o si non ab Apostolis ipsis fidem toto orbe promulgantibiss cum fide hanc regendi Ecclesias formam constituentibus factum sit So that he conceives so general an order could not be made unless the Apostles themselves at that time were the authors of it But First Ieroms In toto orbe dicretâ—m est relates not to an antecedent order which was the ground of the institution of Episcopacy but to the universal establishment of that order which came up upon the occasion of so many schisms it is something therefore consequent upon the first setting up Episcopacy which is the general obtaining of it in the Churches of Christ when they saw its usefulness in order to the Churches peace therefore the Emphasis lies not in decretum est but in toto orbe noting how suddenly this order met with universal acceptance when it first was brought up in the Church after the Apostles death Which that it was Ieroms meaning appears by what he saith after Paulatim verò ut dissensionum plantaria evellerentur ad unum omnem solicitudinem esse delatam Where he notes the gradual obtaining of it which I suppose was thus according to his opinion first in the Colledge of Presbyters appointed by the Apostles there being a necessity of order there was a President among them who had 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as the President of the Senate i. e. did moderate the affairs of the Assembly by proposing matters to it gathering voices being the first in all matters of concernment but he had not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as Casaubon very well distinguisheth them i. e. had no power over his fellow-Presbyters but that still resided in the Colledge or body of them After this when the Apostles were taken out of the way who kept the main power in their own hands of ruling the several Presbyteries or delegated some to do it who had a main hand in the planting Churches with the Apostles and thence are called in Scripture sometimes Fellow-labourers in the Lord and sometimes Evangelists and by Theodoret Apostles but of a second order after I say these were deceased and the main power left in the Presbyteries the several Presbyters enjoying an equal power among themselves especially being many in one City thereby great occasion was given to many schisms partly by the bandying of the Presbyters one against another partly by the sidings of the people with some against the rest partly by the too common use of the power of ordinations in Presbyters by which they were more able to increase their own party by ordaining those who would joyn with them and by this means to perpetuate schisms in the Church upon this when the wiser and graver sort considered the abuses following the promiscuous use of this power of ordination and withall having in their minds the excellent frame of the Government of the Church under the Apostles and their Deputies and for preventing of future schisms and divisions among themselves they unanimously agreed to choose one out of their number who was best qualified for the management of so great a trust and to devolve the exercise of the power of ordination and jurisdiction to him yet so as that he â—ct nothing of importance without the consent and concurrence of the Presbyters who were still to be as the Common Council to the Bishop This I take to be the true and just account of the Original of Episcopacy in the Primitive Church according to Ierome Which model of Government thus contrived and framed sets forth to us a most lively character of that great Wisdom and Moderation which then ruled the heads and hearts of the Primitive Christians and which when men have searched and studyed all other wayes the abuses incident to this Government through the corruptions of men and times being retrenched will be found the most agreeable to the Primitive form both as asserting the due interest of the Presbyteries and allowing the due honour of Episcopacy and by the joynt harmony of both carrying on the affairs of the Church with the greatest Unity Concord and Peace Which form of Government I cannot see how any possible reason can be produced by either party why they may not with chearfulness embrace it Secondly another evidence that Ierome by decretum est did not mean an order of the Apostles themselves is by the words which follow the matter of the decree viz. Ut unus de Presbyteris electus superponeretur caeteris one chosen not only out of but by the Presbyters should be set above the rest for so Ierome must be understood for the Apostles could not themselves choose out of all Presbyteries one person to be set above the rest and withall the instance brought of the Church of Alexandria makes it evident to be meant of the choosing by the Presbyters and not by the Apostles Besides did Ierome mean choosing by the Apostles he would have given some intimations of the hand the Apostles had in it which we see not in him the least ground for And as for that pretence that Ecclesiae consuetudo is Apostolica traditio I have already made it appear that Apostolica traditio in Ierome is nothing else but Consuetudo Ecclesiae which I shall now confirm by a pregnant and unanswerable testimony out of Ierome himself Unaquaeque provincia abundet in sensu suo praecepta majorum leges Apostolicas arbitretur Let every Province abound in its own sense and account of the ordinances of their Ancestors as of Apostolical Laws Nothing could have been spoken more fully to open to us what Ierome means by Apostolical traditions viz the practice of the Church in former ages though not coming from the Apostles themselves Thus we have once more cleared Ierome and the truth together I only wish all that are of his judgement for the practice of the primitive Church were of his temper for the practice of their own and while they own not Episcopacy as necessary by a divine right yet being duly moderated and joyned with Presbyteries they may embrace it as not only a lawful but very useful constitution in the Church of God By which we may see what an excellent temper may be found out most fully consonant to the primitive Church for the management of ordinations and Church power viz. by the Presidency of the Bishop and the concurrence of the Presbyterie For the Top-gallant of Episcopacy can never be so well managed for the right steering the ship of the Church as when it is joyned with the under-sails of a Moderate Presbyterie So much shall suffice to speak here as to the power of ordination which we have found to be derived from the Synagogue and the customes observed in
Ignatius of all others be brought to Rome to suffer when the Proconsuls and the Praesides provinciarum did every where in time of persecution execute their power in punishing Christians at their own Tribunals without sending them so long a journey to Rome to be martyred there And how came Ignatius to make so many and such strange excursions as he did by the story if the Souldiers that were his Guard were so cruel to him as he complains they were Now all those uncertain and fabulous Narrations as to Persons then arising from want of sufficient Records made at those times make it more evident how incompetent a Judge antiquity is as to the certainty of things done in Apostolical times If we should onely speak of the Fabulous Legends of the first Planters of Churches in these Western parts we need no further evidence of the great defect of antiquity as to persons Not to goe out of our own Nation Whence come the stories of Peter Iames Paul Simon Aristobulus besides Ioseph of Arimathea and his company all being Preachers of the Gospel and planters of Churches here but onely from the great defect in Antiquity as to the Records of persons imployed in the several places for preaching the Gospell Thus much to shew the defectiveness as to the Records of antiquity and thereby the incompetency of them for being a way to find out the certain course the Apostles took in Setling and Governing Churches by them Planted The next thing shewing the incompetency of the Records of the Church for deciding the certain Form of Church-Government in the Apostles times is the ambiguity of the Testimony given by those Records A Testimony sufficient todecide a Controversie must be plain and evident and must speak full and home to the Case under debate Now if I make it appear that antiquity doth not so nothing then can be evident from thence but that we are left to as great uncertainties as before The matter in Controversie is whether any in a Superiour Order to Presbyters were instituted by the Apostles themselves for the Regulating of the Churches by them planted For the proving of which three things are the most insisted on First the Personal succession of some persons to the Apostles in Churches by them planted Secondly the appropriating the name 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to Bishops in a Superiour Order to Presbyters after the Apostles decease Thirdly the Churches owning the Order of Episcopacy as of Divine Institution If now we can make these three things evident First That personall Succession might be without such superiority of Order Secondly That the names of Bishop and Presbyters were common after the Distinction between them was introduced and Thirdly That the Church did not own Episcopacy as a Divine Institution but Ecclesiasticall and those who seem to speak most of it do mean no more I shall suppose enough done to invalidate the Testimony of antiquity as to the matter in hand First Then for the matter of Succession in Apostolical Churches I shall lay down these four things to evince that the argument drawn from thence cannot fully clear the certain course which the Apostles took in setling the Government of Churches First That the Succession might be onely as to different Degree and not as to a different Order where the Succession is clear nothing possibly can be inferred from it beyond this For bare Succession implies no more then that there was one in those Churches succeeding the Apostles from whom afterwards the succession was derived Now then supposing onely at present that it was the Custome in all the Churches at that time to be ruled by a Colledge of Presbyters acting in a parity of Power and among these one to sit as the Nasi in the Sanhedrin having a priority of Order above the rest in place without any superiory of Power over his Colleagues will not the matter of Succession be clear and evident enough notwithstanding this Succession of Persons was the thing inquired for and not a Succession of Power if therefore those that would prove a Succession of Apostolical Power can onely produce a List and Catalogue of names in Apostolical Churches without any evidence of what power they had they apparently fail of proving the thing in question which is not whether there might not be found out a List of persons in many Churches derived from the Apostles times but whether those persons did enjoy by way of peculiarity and appropriation to themselves that power which the Apostles had over many Churches while they lived Now this the meer Succession will never prove which will best appear by some Parallel instances At Athens after they grew weary of their ten yeares 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the people chose nine every year to Govern the affairs of the Common-wealth These nine enjoyed a parity of power among themselves and therefore had a place where they consulted together about the matters of State which was called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as Demosthenes Plutarch and others tell us Now although they enjoyed this equality of power yet One of them had greater Dignity then the rest and therefore was called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by way of excellency and his name was onely set in the publike Records of that year and therefore was called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and the year was reckoned from him as Pausanias and Iulius Pollux inform us Here we see now the Sccession clear in one single person and yet no superiority of power in him over his Colleagues The like may be observed among the Ephori and Bidiaej at Sparta the number of the Ephori was alwayes five from their first institution by Lycurgus and not nine as the Greek Etymologist imagines these enjoyed likewise a parity of power among them but among these to give name to the year they made choice of one who was called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 here too â—s the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 at Athens and him they called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as Plutarch tells us Where we have the very name 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 attributed to him that had only his primacy of order without any superiority of power which is used by Iustin Martyr of the President of assemblies among the Christians Now from hence we may evidently see that meer succession of some single persons named above the rest in the successions in Apostolicall Churches cannot inforce any superiority of power in the persons so named above others supposed to be as joynt Governours of the Churches with them I dispute not whether it were so or no whether according to Blondel the Succession was from the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or whether by choice as at Alexandria but I onely now shew that this argument from Succession is weak and proves not at all the certainty of the power those persons enjoyed Secondly This Succession is not so evident and convincing in all places as it ought to be to demonstrate the thing
à Johanne conlocatum refert sicut Romanorum Clementem à Petro ordinatum edit Proinde utique caeterae exhibent quos ab Apostolis in Episcopatum constitutos Apostolici seminis traduces habeant A succession I grant is proved in Apostolical Churches by these words of Tertullian and this succession of persons and those persons Bishops too but then it is only said that these persons derived their office from the Apostles but nothing expressed what relation they had to the Church any more then is implyed in the general name of Episcopi nor what power they had over Presbyters only that there were such persons was sufficient to his purpose which was to prescribe against heretickes i. e. to Non-suit them or to give in general reasons why they were not to be proceeded with as to the particular debate of the things in question between them For praescribere in the civil Law whence Tertullian transplanted that word as many other into the Church is cum quis adversarium certis exceptionibus removet à lite contestandâ ita ut de summa rei neget agendum eamve causam ex juris praescripto judicandaÌ„ three sorts of these prescriptions Tertullian elsewere mentions Hoc exigere veritatem cui nemo praescribere potest non spatium temporum non patrocinia personarum non privilegium regionum Here he stands upon the first which is a prescription of time because the Doctrine which was contrary to that of the Hereticks was delivered by the Apostles and conveyed down by their successors which was requisite to be shewed in order to the making his prescription good Which he thus further explains Age jam qui voles curiositatem melius exercere in negotio salutis tuae percurre Ecclesias Apostolicas apud quas ipsae adhuc Cathedrae Apostolorum suis locis praesidentur apud quas ipsae authenticae eorum literae recitantur sonantes vocem praesentantes faciem uniuscujusque Proximè est tibi Achaia habes Corinthum Si non longe es à Macedonia habes Philippos habes Thessalonicenses Si potes in Asiam tendere habes Ephesum Sâ— autem Italiae adjaces habes Romam unde nobis quoque auctoritas praestò est What he spoke before of the persons he now speaks of the Churches themselves planted by the Apostles which by retaining the authentick Epistles of the Apostles sent to them did thereby sufficiently prescribe to all the novell opinions of the Hereticks We see then evidently that it is the Doctrine which they speak of as to succession and the persons no further then as they are the conveyers of that Doctrine either then it must be proved that a succession of some persons in Apostolical power is necessary for the conveying of this Doctrine to men or no argument at all can be inferred from hence for their succeeding the Apostles in their power because they are said to convey down the Apostolical Doctrine to succeeding ages Which is Austins meaning in that speech of his Radix Christianae societatis per sedes Apostolorum successiones Episcoporum certa per orbem propagatione diffunditur The root of Christian society i. e. the Doctrine of the Gospel is spread abroad the world through the channels of the Apostolical Sees and the continued successions of Bishops therein And yet if we may believe the same Austin Secundum honorum vocabula quae jam Ecclesiae usus obtinuit Episcopatus Presbyterio major est The difference between Episcopacy and Presbyterie rise from the custome of the Church attributing a name of greater honour to those it had set above others And as for Tertullian I believe neither party will stand to his judgement as to the original of Church power For he saith expresly Differentiâ—m inter ordinem plebem constituit Ecclesia auctoritas all the difference between Ministers and people comes from the Churches authority unless he mean something more by the following words honor per Ordinis concessum sanctificatus à Deo viz. that the honour which is received by ordination from the Bench of Church-Officers is sanctified by God i. e. by his appointment as well as blessing For otherwise I know not how to understand him But however we see here he makes the Government of the Church to lye in a Concessus ordinis which I know not otherwise to render than by a Bench of Presbyters because only they were said in ordinem cooptari who were made Presbyters and not those who were promoted to any higher degree in the Church By the way we may observe the original of the name of Holy Orders in the Church not as the Papists and others following them as though it noted any thing inherent by way of I know not what character in the person but because the persons ordained were thereby admitted in Ordinem among the number of Church-officers So there was Ordo Senatorum Ordo Equestris Ordo Decurionum and Ordo Sacerdotum among the Romans as in this Inscription ORDO SACERDOT DEI HERCULIS INVICTI From hence the use of the word came into the Church and thence Ordination ex vi vocis imports no more than solemn admission into this order of Presbyters and therefore it is observable that laying on of hands never made men Priests under the Law but only admitted them into publike Office So much for Tertullians Concessus ordinis which hath thus fâ—r drawn us out of our way but we now return And therefore Fourthly This personal suceession so much spoken of â—â— sometimes attributed to Presbyters even after the distinction came into use between Bishops and them And that even by those Authors who before had told us the succession was by Bishops as Irenaeus Cum autem ad eam iterum traditionem quâ— est ab Apostolis quâ— per successiones Presbyterorum in Ecclesiis custoditur provocamus eos qui adversantur traditioni dicent se non solum Presbyteris sed etiam Apostolis existentes sapientiores c. Here he attributes the keeping of the Pradition of Apostolical Doctrine to the succession of Presbyters which before he had done to Bishops And more fully afterwards Quapropter iis qui in Ecclesiâ sunt Presbyteris obaudire oportet his qui successionem habent ab Apostolis sicut ostendimus qui cum Episcopatus successione charisma veritatis certum secundum placitum patris acceperunt In this place he not only asserts the succession of Presbyters to the Apostles but likewise attributes the successio Episcopatus to these very Presbyters What strange confusion must this raise in any ones mind that seeks for a succession of Episcopal power above Presbyters from the Apostles by the Testimony of Irenaeus when he so plainly attributes both the succession to Presbyters and the Episcopacy too which he speaks of And in the next chapter adds Tales Presbyteros nutrit Ecclesia de quibus Propheta ait dabo principes tuos in pace Episcopos
380. Isidore succeeded Leander in Sevill 600. The Council sat 619. The Council of Aquen which tanscribes Isidore and owns his Doctrine 816. So that certainly supposing the words of all to be the same yet the Testimony is of greater force as it was owned in several Ages of the Church by whole Councils without any the least controul that we read of And if this then must not be looked on as the Sense of the Church at that time I know not how we can come to understand it if what is positively maintained by different persons in different ages of the Church and in different places without any opposing it by Writers of those ages or condemning it by Councils may not be conceived to be the Sense of the Church at that time So that laying all these things together we may have enough to conclude the Ambiguity at least and thereby incompetency of the Testimony of Antiquity for finding out the certain form which the Apostles observed in planting Churches We proceed to the third thing to shew the incompetency of Antiquity for deciding this Controversie which will be from the Partiality of the Testimony brought from thence Two things will sufficiently manifest the Partiality of the judgment of Antiquity in this Case First their apparent judging of the practice of the first Primitive Church according to the Customes of their own Secondly their stiffe and pertinacious adhering to private traditions contrary to one another and both sides maintaining theirs as Apostolical First judging the practice of the Apostles by that of their own times as is evident by Theodoret and the rest of the Greek Commentators assigning that as the Reason why the Presbyters spoken of in the Epistles to Timothy and Titus were not Bishops in the Sense of their age because there could be but one Bishop in a City whereas there are more expressed in those places as being in the several Cities whereas this is denyed of Apostolical times by the late pleaders for Episcopacy and it is said of them that they spoke according to the custome of their own time And it is now thought there were two Bishops in Apostolical times in several Cities the one the head of the Jewish Coetus and the other of the Gentile I enter not the Dispute again here whether it were so or no onely I hence manifest how farr those persons themselves who plead for the judgement of the Fathers as deciding this Controversie are from thinking them impartial Judges when as to the grounds of their Sentence they are confessed to speak onely of the practice of their own time Who can imagine any force in Chrysostomes argument That the Presbyters who laid hands on Timothy must needs be Bishops because none do Ordain in the Church but Bishops unless he makes this the medium of his argument That whatever was the practice of the Church in his dayes was so in Apostolical times There is I know not what strange influence in a received custome if generally embraced that doth possess men with a â—ancy it was never otherwise then it is with them nay when they imagine the necessity of such a custome at present in the Church they presently think it could never be otherwise then it is But of this I have spoken somewhat already Secondly that which makes it appear how partial the judgement of Antiquity is in adhering to their particular Traditions and calling them Apostolical though contrary to one another How can we then fix upon the Testimony of Antiquity as any thing certain or impartial in this Case when it hath been found so evidently partial in a Case of less concernment then this is A witness that hath once betrayed his faithfulness in the open Court will hardly have his Evidence taken in a Case of moment especially when the Cause must stand or fall according to his single Testimony For my part I see not how any man that would see Reason for what he doth can adhere to the Church for an unquestionable Tradition received from the Apostles when in the case of keeping Easter whether with the Jewes on the fourteenth Moon or only on the Lords day there was so much unreasonable heat shewed on both sides and such confidence that on either side their Tradition was Apostolical The Story of which is related by Eusebius and Socrates and many others They had herein all the advantages imaginable in order to the knowing the certainty of the thing then in question among them As their nearness to Apostolical times being but one remove from them yea the persons contending pleaded personal acquaintance with some of the Apostles themselves as Polycarp with Iohn and Anicetus of Rome that he had his Tradition from Saint Peter and yet so great were the heats so irreconcilable the Controversie that they proceeded to dart the Thunderbolt of excommunication in one anothers faces as Victor with more zeal then piery threw presently the Asiatick Churches all out of Communion onely for differing as to this Tradition The small coals of this fire kindled a whole Aetna of contention in the Christian world the smoak and ashes nay the flames of which by the help of the Prince of the Aire were blown over into the bosome of the then almost Infant Northern Churches of Brittain where a solemn dispute was caused upon this quarrel between Colmannus on one side and Wilfride on the other The like contest was upon this Occasion between Augustine the Monk and the Brittish Bishops The Observation of this strange combustion in the Primitive Church upon the account of so vain frivolous unnecessary a thing as this was drew this note from a Learned and Judicious Man formerly quoted in his Tract of Schism By this we may plainly see the danger of our appeal to Antiquity for resolution in controverted points of Faith O how small relief are we to expect from thence For if the discretion of the chiefest Guides and Directors of the Church did in a point so trivial so inconsiderable so mainly fail them as not to see the Truth in a Subject wherein it is the greater marvel how they could avoid the fight of it Can we without the imputation of great grossness and folly think so poor-spirited persons competent Iudges of the questions now on foot betwixt the Churches Thus that person as able to make the best improvement of the Fathers as any of those who profess themselves the most superstitious admirers of Antiquity But if we must stand to the judgement of the Fathers let us stand to it in this that no Tradition is any further to be imbraced then as it is founded on the Word of GOD. For which purpose those words of Cyprian are very observable In compendio est autem apud religios as simplices mentes errorem deponere invenire atque eruere veritatem Nam si ad Divinae Traditionis caput Originem revertamur cessat error humanus He asserts it an easie
matter for truly religious and plain-hearted men to lay aside their Errour and to find out the Truth which is by returning to the head and spring of Divine Tradition viz. the Scriptures Which he expresseth further with an elegant similitude Si Canalis aquam ducens qui copiose prius largiter profluebat subito deficiat nonne ad fontem pergitur ut illic defectionis ratio noscatur utrumne arescentibus venis in capite unda siccaverit an verò integra deinde plena procurrens in medio itinere destiterit ut si vitio interrupti aut bibuli canalis effectum est quò minus aqua continua perseveranter jugiter flueret refecto confirmato canali ad usum atque ad potum civitatis aqua collecta eadem ubertate atque integritate repraesentaretur qua de fonte proficiscitur Quod nunc facere oportet Dei sacerdotes praecepta divina servantes ut si in aliquo mutaverit l. nutaverit vacillaverit veritas ad originem Dominicam Evangelicam Apostolicam Traditionem revertamur inde surgat actus nostri ratio unde ordo origo surrexit His meaning is That as when a channel suddenly fails we presently inquire where and how the breach was made and look to the Spring and Fountain to see the waters be fully conveyed from thence as formerly so upon any failure in the Tradition of the Church our onely recourse must be to the true Fountain of Tradition the Word of God and ground the Reason of our Actions upon that which was the Foundation of our profession And when Stephen the Bishop of Rome would tedder him to tradition Cyprian keeps his liberty by this close question Unde illa Traditio â— utrumne de Dominica Evangelica auctoritate descendens an de Apostolorum mandatis atque Epistolis veniens Si ergo aut Evangelio praecipitur aut in Apostolorum Epistolis aut Actibus continetur observetur Divina haec Sancta traditio We see this good man would not baulk his way on foot for the great bugbear of Tradition unless it did bear the Character of a Divine Truth in it and could produce the credentials of Scripture to testifie its authority to him To the same purpose that stout Bishop of Cappadocia Firmilian whose unhappiness with Cyprians was onely that of Iobs Friends that they excellently managed a bad Cause and with far more of the Spirit of Christianity then Stephen did who was to be justified in nothing but the Truth he defended Eos autem saith Firmilian qui Roma sunt non ea in omnibus observare quae sint ab origine tradita frustra Apostolorum auctoritatem prâ—tendere which he there makes out at large viz. That the Church of Rome had gathered corruption betimes which after broke out into an Impostume in the head of it Where then must we find the certain way of resolving the Controversie we are upon The Scriptures determine it not the Fathers tell us there is no believing tradition any further then it is founded in Scripture thus are we sent back from one to the other till at last we conclude there is no certain way at all left to find out a decision of it Not that we are left at such uncertainties as to matters of Faith I would not be so mistaken We have Archimedes his Postulatum granted us for that a place to fix our Faith on though the World be moved out of its place I mean the undoubted Word of God but as to matters of Fact not clearly revealed in Scripture no certainty can be had of them from the hovering light of unconstant Tradition Neither is it onely unconstant but in many things Repugnant to its self which was the last Consideration to be spoke to in reference to the shewing the incompetency of Antiquity for deciding our Controversie Well then suppose we our selves now waiting for the final Verdict of Church-Tradition to determine our present cause If the Iury cannot agree we are as far from satisfaction as ever and this is certainly the Case we are now in The main difficulty lyes in the immediate succession to the Apostles if that were but once cleared we might bear with interruptions afterwards but the main seat of the controversie lies there whether the Apostles upon their withdrawing from the Government of Churches did substitute single persons to succeed them or no so that uâ—less that be cleared the very Deed of Gift is questioned and if that could be made appear all other things would speedily follow Yes say some that is clear For at Ierusalem Antioch and Rome it is evident that single persons were entrusted with the Government of Churches In Ierusalem say they Iames the brother of our LORD was made Bishop by the Apostles But whence doth that appear It is said from Hegesippus in Eusebius But what if he say no such thing his words are these 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which is there interpreted Ecclesiae administrationem una cum caeteris Apostolis suscepit And no more is thereby meant but that this Iames who is by the Antients conceived to be onely a Disciple before is now taken into a higher charge and invested in a power of governing the Church as the Apostles were His power it is plain was of the same nature with that of the Apostles themselves And who will go about to degrade them so much as to reduce them to the Office of Ordinary Bishops Iames in probability did exercise his Apostleship the most at Ierusalem where by the Scriptures we find him Resident and from hence the Church afterwards because of his not travelling abroad as the other Apostles did according to the Language of their own times they fixed the Title of Bishop upon him But greater difference we shall find in those who are pleaded to be successours of the Apostles At Antioch some as Origen and Eusebius make Ignatius to succeed Peter Ierome makes him the third Bishop and placeth Evodius before him Others therefore to solve that make them cotemporary Bishops the one of the Church of the Jewes the other of the Gentiles with what congruity to their Hypothesis of a single Bishop and Deacons placed in every City I know not but that Salvo hath been discussed before Come we therefore to Rome and here the succession is as muddy as the Tiber it self for here Tertullian Rufinus and several others place Clement next to Peter Irenaeus and Eusebius set Anacletus before him Epiphanius and Optatus both Anacletus and Cletus Augustinus and Damasus with others make Anacletus Cletus and Linus all to precede him What way shall we find to extrica e our selves out of this Labyrinth so as to reconcile it with the certainty of the Form of Government in the Apostles times Certainly if the Line of Succession fail us here when we most need it we have little cause to pin our Faith upon it as to the certainty of
any particular Form of Church-Government setled in the Apostles times which can be drawn from the help of the Records of the Primitive Church which must be first cleared of all Defectiveness Ambiguity Partiality and Confusion before the thing we inquire for can be extracted out of them Having thus far shewed that we have no absolute certainty of what Form of Government was setled by the Apostles in the several Churches of their Plantation The next Consideration which follows to be spoken to is that the Apostles in probability did not observe any one fixed course of setling the Government of Churches but setled it according to the several circumstances of places and persons which they had to deal with This will be ex abundanti as to the thing by me designed which would be sufficiently cleared without this and therefore I lay it not as the Foundation of my Thesis but onely as a Doctrine of Probability which may serve to reconcile the Controversies on foot about Church-Government For if this be made appear then it may be both granted that the Apostles did settle the Government in the Church in a Colledg of Presbyters and in a Bishop and Deacons too according to the diversity of places and the variety of circumstances It is easie to observe that as to Rites and Customes in the Church the Original of most mens mistakes is Concluding that to be the general Practice of the Church which they meet with in some places whereas that is most true which Firmiliam tells us In plurimis Provinciis multa pro locorum nominum l. hominum diversitate variantur nec tamen propter hoc ab Ecclesiae Catholicae pace atque unitate discossum est Those Rites varied in divers places retaining still the Unity of the Faith so as to matter of Government mens mistakes do arise from an universal conclusion deduced out of particular premises and what they think was done in one place they conclude must be done in all Whereas these are the grounds inducing me probably to conclude that they observed not the same course in all places Which when an impartial Reader hath soberly considered with what hath gone before I am in hopes the Novelty of this Opinion may not prejudicate its entertainment with him My grounds are these First From the different state condition and quantity of the Churches planted by the Apostles Secondly From the multitude of unfixed Officers in the Church then which acted with authority over the Church where they were resident Thirdly from the different customes observed in several Churches as to their Government after the Apostles decease I begin with the first The different State Condition and Quantity of the Churches planted by the Apostles For which we are to consider these things First That God did not give the Apostles alike success of their labours in all places Secondly That a small number of believers did not require the same number which a great Church did to teach and govern them Thirdly That the Apostles did settle Church-Officers according to the probability of increase of believers and in order thereto in some great places First That God did not give the Apostles equal success to their labours in all places After God called them to be Fishers of men it was not every draught which filled their Net with whole shoals of Fishes sometimes they might toyle all Night still and catch nothing or very little It was not every Sermon of Peters which converted three thousand the whole world might at that rate soon have become Christian although there had been but few Preachers besides the Apostles God gave them strange success at first to encourage them the better to meet with difficulties afterwards In 〈…〉 es God told them he had much people in others we read but of few that believed At Corinth Paul Plants and Apollos Waters and God gives an abundant increase but at Athens where if moral dispositions had fitted men for Grace and the improvements of Nature we might have expected the greatest number of Converts yet here we read of many mocking and others delaying and but of very few believing Dionysius and Damaris and some others with them The Plantations of the Apostles were very different not from the Nature of the soile they had to deal with but from the different influence of the Divine Spirit upon their Endeavours in severall places We cannot think that the Church at Cenchrea for so it is called was as well stockt with Believers as that at Corinth Nay the Churches generally in the Apostles times were not so filled with Numbers as men are apt to imagine them to be I can as soon hope to find in Apostolical times Diocesan Churches as Classical and Provincial yet this doth not much advantage the Principles of the Congregational men as I have already demonstrated Yet I do not think that all Churches in the Apostles times were but one Congregation but as there was in Cities many Synagogues so there might be many Churches out of those Synagogues enjoying their former liberties and priviledges And they that will shew me where five thousand Jewes and more did ordinarily meet in one of their Synagogues for publike worship may gain something upon me in order to believing the Church of Ierusalem to be but one Congregation and yet not perswade me till they have made it appear that the Christians then had as publike solemn set meetings as the Jews had which he that understands the state of the Churches at that time will hardly yield to the belief of I confess I cannot see any rule in Scripture laid down for distributing Congregations but this necessity would put them upon and therefore it were needless to prescribe them and very little if any reason can I see on the other side why where there were so much people as to make distinct Congregations they must make distinct Churches from one another but of that largely in the next chapter All Churches then we see were not of an equal extent The second premisal Reason will grant viz. that a small Church did not require the same number of Officers to rule it which a great one did For the duty of Officers lying in Reference to the People where the People was but few one constant setled Officer with Deacons under him might with as much ease discharge the work as in a numerous Church the joynt help of many Officers was necessary to carry it on The same reason which tells us that a large flock of Sheep consisting of many thousands doth call for many Shepherds to attend them doth likewise tell us that a small flock may be governed with the care of one single Shepherd watching continually over them The third premisall was that in great Cities the Apostles did not onely respect the present guidance of those that were converted but established such as might be useful for the converting and bringing in of others to the Faith who were
as yet strangers to the Covenant of promise and aliens from the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 society of Christians And here I conceive a mistake of some men lies when they think the Apostles respected onely the Ruling of those which were already converted for though this were one part of their work yet they had an eye to the main Design then on foot the subjecting the World to the Obedience of Faith in order to which it was necessity in places of great resort and extent to place not onely such as might be sufficient to superintend the Affairs of the Church but such as might lay out themselves the most in Preaching the Gospel in order to converting others Haveing laid down these things by way of premisal we will see what advantage we can make of them in order to our purpose First then I say that in Churches consisting of a small number of Believers where there was no great probability of a large increase afterwards One single Pastour With Deacons under him were onely constituted by the Apostles for the ruling of those Churches Where the work was not so great but a Pastour and Deacons might do it what need was there of having more and in the great scarcity of fit Persons for setled Rulers then and the great multitude and necessity of unfixed Officers for preaching the Gospel abroad many persons fit for that work could not be spared to be constantly Resident upon a place Now that in some places at first there were none placed but onely a Pastour and Deacons I shall confirm by these following Testimonies The first is that of Clement in his Epistle 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Apostles therefore preaching abroad through Countreys and Cities ordained the First-fruits of such as believed having proved them by the Spirit to be Bishops and Deacons for them that should afterwards believe Whether by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 we understand Villages or Regions is not material for it is certain here the Author takes it as distinct from Cities and there is nothing I grant expressed where the Apostles did place Bishops and Deacons exclusive of other places i. e. whether onely in Cities or Countreys but it is evident by this that where-ever they planted Churches they ordained Bishops and Deacons whether those Churches were in the City or Countrey And here we find no other Officers setled in those Churches but Bishops and Deacons And that there were no more in those Churches then he speaks of appears from his Designe of paralleling the Church-Officers in the Gospel to those under the Law and therefore it was here necessary to enumerate all that were then in the Churches The main controversie is what these Bishops were whether many in one place or onely one and if but one whether a Bishop in the modern Sense or no. For the first here is nothing implying any necessity of having more then one in a place which will further be made appear by and by out of other Testimonies which will help to explain this As for the other thing we must distinguish of the Notion of a Bishop For he is either such a one as hath none over him in the Church or he is such a one as hath a power over Presbyters acting under him and by authority derived from him If we take it in the first Sense so every Pastor of a Church having none exercising jurisdiction over him is a Bishop and so every such single Pastor in the Churches of the Primitive times was a Bishop in this Sense as every Master of a Family before Societies for Government were introduced might be called a King because he had none above him to command him but if we take a Bishop in the more proper Sense for one that hath power over Presbyters and People such a one these single Pastors were not could not be For it is supposed that these were onely single Pastors But then it is said that after other Presbyters were appointed then these single Pastors were properly Bishops but to that I answer First they could not be proper Bishops by vertue of their first Constitution for then they had no power over any Presbyters but onely over the Deacons and People and therefore it would be well worth considering how a power of jurisdiction over Presbyters can be derived from those single Pastors of Churches that had no Presbyters joyned with them It must be then clearly and evidently proved that it was the Apostles intention that these single Pastors should have the power over Presbyters when the Churches necessity did require their help which intention must be manifested and declared by some manifestation of it as a Law of Christ or nothing can thence be deduced of perpetual concernment to the Church of Christ. Secondly either they were Bishops before or onely after the appointment of Presbyters if before then a Bishop and a Presbyter having no Bishop over him are all one if after onely then it was by his communicating power to Presbyters to be such or their choice which made him their Bishop if the first then Presbyters quoad ordinem are onely a humane institution it being acknowledged that no Evidence can be brought from Scripture for them and for any Act of the Apostles not recorded in Scripture for the constituting of them it must goe among unwritten Traditions and if that be a Law still binding the Church then there are such which occurre not in the Word of GOD and so that must be an imperfect coppy of Divine Lawes If he were made Bishop by an Act of the Presbyters then Presbyters have power to make a Bishop and so Episcopacy is an humane institution depending upon the voluntary Act of Presbyters But the clearest Evidence for one single Pastour with Deacons in some Churches at the beginning of Christianity is that of Epiphanius which though somewhat large I shall recite because if I mistake not the curtailing of this Testimony hath made it speak otherwise then ever Epiphanius meant 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. The Sense of Epiphanius is very intricate and obscure we â—hall endeavour to explain it He is giving Aerius an account why Paul in his Epistle to Timothy mentions onely Bishops and Deacons and passeth over Presbyters His account is this first he chaâ—geth Aerius with ignorance of the Series of History which he calls 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and the profound and ancient Records the Church wherein it is expressed that upon the first Preaching of the Gospel the Apostle writ according to the present state of things Where Bishops were not yet appointed for so certainly it should be read 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for then he must contradict himself the Apostle writes to Bishops and Deacons for the Apostles could not settle all things at first for there was a necessity of Presbyters and Deacons for by these two Orders all Ecclesiastical Offices might be performed for where so I read it 〈◊〉
for so at first the Presbyters were called among whom this was the course of governing Churches that as one withdrew another took his place This opinion of his he takes occasion to speak of in several other places Upon Rom. 16. Adhuc rectores Ecclesiae paucis erant in locis Governours of Churches were as yet set up but in few places And upon 1 Cor. 1. Propterea Ecclesiae scribit quia adhuc singulis Ecclesiis rectores non erant instituti And on 1 Cor. 11. Convenientibus Presbyteris quia adhâ—o rectores Ecclesiis non omnibus locis erant constituti By all which it is most evident that this both learned and antient Author cited with no small respect by St. Austin doth not conceive that the Apostle did observe any setled form in the governing of Churches but actâ—d according to principles of prudence according to the necessities and occasions of the several Churches by them planted So that where there were small Churches one Pastor with Deacons might suffice in greater Churches some were governed by Presbyters acting in common Council others though very few at first had Rectors placed over them for superintending the affairs of the Church Secondly In Churches consisting of a multitude of believers or where there was a probability of great increase by preaching the Gospel the Apostles did settle a Colledge of Presbyters whose office was partly to govern the Church already formed and partly to labour in the Converting more So that in all great Cities where either the work was already great by the number of believers in order to the discharging of Pastoral duties to them or where it was great in reference to the number they laboured in converting of it seems most consonant to reason and Scripture that the work should be carried on by the joint assistance of many associated in the same work For is it any ways probable that the Apostles should ordain Bishops 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as Clemens speaks of such as should believe and not ordain persons in order to the making them believe They have either a very low opinion of the work of a Gospel-Bishop or very little consideration of the zeal activity and diligence which was then used in preaching reproving exhorting in season out of season that think one single person was able to undergo it all Discipline was a great deal more strict theâ— Preaching more diligent men more apprehensive of the weight of their function than for any to undertake such a care and charge of souls that it was impossible for them ever to know observe or watch over so as to give an account for them Besides while we suppose this one person imployed in the duties of his flock what leisure or time could such a one have to preach to the Gentiles and unbelieving Jews in order to their Conversion The Apostles did not certainly aym at the setting up the honour of any one person making the Office of the Church a matter of State and Dignity more then employment but they chose men for their activity in preaching the Gospel and for their usefulness in labouring to add continually to the Church Men that were imployed in the Church then did not consult for their â—ase or honour and thought it not enough for them to sit still and bâ—d others work but they were of Pauls mind Necessity was laid upon them yea Woe was unto them if they preached not the Gospel Publick prayers were not then looked on as the more principal end of Christian assemblies then preaching nor consequenâ—ly that it was the more principal office of the Stewardâ— of the Mysteries of God to read the publick prayers of the Church then to preach in season and out of season And is it not great pitty two such excellent and necessary duties should ever be set at variance much less one so preferred before the other that the one must be esteemed as Sarah and the other almost undergo the hardship of Hagar to be looked on as the Bond-woman of the Synagogue and be turned out of doors Praying and preaching are the Iackin and Boaz of the Temple like Rachel and Leah both which built up the house of Israel but though Rachel be fair and beautifull yet Leah is the more fruitful though prayer be lovely and amiable in the sight of God when it comes from a heart seriously affected with what it speaks yet preaching tends more to the turning mens souls from sin unto God Were the Apostles commissioned by Christ to go pray or preach and what is it wherein the Ministers of the Gospel succeed the Apostles Is it in the office of Praying or preaching Was Paul sent not to baptize but to preach the Gospel and shall we think those who succeed Paul in his office of preaching are to look upon any thing else as more their work then that Are Ministers in their ordination sent forth to be readers of publick Prayers or to be Dispensers of Gods holy Word Are they ordained wholly to this and shall this be the lesse principal part of their work I but the reason is unanswerable that praying is the more principal end of Christian-assemblies then preaching For the one is the End and the other the Means If by End be meant the ultimate end of all Christian duties that cannot be Prayer for that is a means it self in order to that but the chief end is the fitting souls for eternal prayses if then this unanswerable reason hold good the principal end of Christian assemblies must be only prayses of God and not prayers If by the End be meant the immediate end of preaching as that it referrs to that cannot be for the immediate end of preaching if the Apostle may be judge is instruction and edification in the faith Rather preaching is the end of praying in as much as the blessings conveyed by preaching are the things which men pray for But this is but one of those unhappy consequences which follows mens judging of the service of God rather by the practices of the Church when it came to enjoy ease and plenty than by the wayes and practices of the first and purest Apostolical times when the Apostles who were best able to judge of their own duty looked upon themselves as most concerned in the preaching of the Gospel But to this it is commonly said that there was great reason for it then because the world was to be converted to Christianity and therefore preaching was the more necessary work at that time but when a Nation is converted to the faith that necessity ceaseth It is granted that the preaching of the Gospel in regard of its universal extent was more necessary then which was the foundation of Christs instituting the Apostolical Office with an unlimited commission but if we take Preaching as referring to particular Congregations there is the same necessity now that there was then People need as much instruction as ever and so much the more in that they are
apt to think now the name of Christians will carry them to Heaven It is a too common and very dangerous deceit of men to look upon Religion more as a profession then matter of Life more as a Notion then an inward temper Men must be beat off from more things which they are apt to trust to for salvation now than in those times Men could not think so much then that diligence in publike assemblies and attendance at publick prayers was the main Religion Few would profess Christianity in those times but such as were resolved before hand rather to let go their lives then their profession but the more profess it now without understanding the terms of salvation by it the greater necessity of preaching to instruct men in it But I think more need not be said of this to those that know it is another thing to be a Christian then to be called so But however it is granted that in the Apostles times preaching was the great Work and if so how can we think one single person in a great City was sufficient both to preach to and rule the Church and to preach abroad in order to the conversion of more from their Gentilisme to Christianity Especially if the Church of every City was so large as some would make it viz. to comprehend all the Believers under the civil jurisdâ—ction of the City and so both City and Countrey the only charge of one single Bishop I think the vastness of the work and the impossibility of a right discharge of it by one single person may be argument enough to make us interpret the places of Scripture which may be understood in that sense as of more then one Pastour in every City as when the Apostles are said to ordain Elders in every City and Pauls calling for the Elders from Ephesus and his writing to the Bishops and Deacons of the Church of Philippi this consideration I say granting that the Texts may be otherwise understood will be enough to incline men to think that in greater Cities there was a society of Presbyters acting together for the carrying on the work of the Gospel in converting some to and building up of others in the faith of Christ. And it seems not in the least manner probable to me that the care of those great Churches should at first be intrusted in the hands of one single Pastour and Deacon and afterwards a new order of Presbyters erected under them without any order or rule laid down in Scripture for it or any mention in Ecclesiastical Writers of any such after institution But instead of that in the most populous Churches we have many remaining footsteps of such a Colledge of Presbyters there established in Apostolical times Thence Ignatius says The Presbyters are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Sanhedrin of the Church appointed by God and the Bench of Apostles sitting together for ruling the affairs of the Church And Origen calls it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a Colledge in every City of Gods appointing and Victor Bishop of Rome Colligium nostrum and Collegium fratrum Pius Pauperem Senatum Christi apud Romam constitutum Tertullian Probatos seniores Cyprian Cleri nostri sacrum venerandumque Concessum and to Cornelius Bishop of Rome and his Clergy Florentissimo Clero tecum praesidenti Ierome Senatum nostrum coetum Presbyterorum commune Concilium Presbyterorum quo Ecclesiae gubernabantur Hilary Seniores sinâ— quorum consilio nihil agebatur in Ecclesia the author de 7 Ordinibus ad Rustiâ—um calls the Presbytâ—â—s negotiorum judices Enâ—ychius tells us there were twelve Presbyters at Alexandria to govern the Church and the author of the Iâ—inerary of Peter of as many constituted at Caesaria who though counterfeit must be allowed to speak though not verâ— yet verisimilia though not true yet likely things Is iâ— possible all these authors should thus speak of their several places of a Colledge of Presbyters acting in power with the Bishop if at first Churches were governed only by a single Bishop and afterwards by subject Presbyters that had nothing to do in the rule of the Church but were only deputed to some particular offices under him which they were impowered to do only by his authority But the joint-rule of Bishop and Presbyters in the Churches will be more largely deduced afterwards Thus we see a Company of Presbyters setled in great Churches now we are not to imagine that all these did equally attend to one part of their woâ—k but all of them according to their several abilities laid out themselves some in â—verseeing and guiding the Church but yet so as upon occasion to discharge all pastoral acts belonging to their function others betook themselves chiefly to the conversion of others to the faith either in the Cities or the adjacent countryes By which we come to a full clear and easie understanding of that so much controverted place 1 Tim. 5. 17. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Elders that rule well are counted worthy of double honour especially they that labour in the Word and Doctrine Not as though it implyed a distâ—â—ct sort of Elders from the Pastors of Churches but among those Elders that were ordained in the great Churches some attended most to ruling the flock already converted others laboured most in converting others to the Faith by preaching though both these being entred into this peculiar function of laying themselves forth for the benefit of the Church did deserve both respect and maintenance yet especially those who imployed themselves in converting others in as much as their burden was greater their labours more abundant their sufferings more and their very Office coming the nearest to the Apostolical function So Chrysostome resolves it upon the fourth of the Ephesians that those who were 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as Theodoret expresseth it the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the fixed Officers of particular Churches were inferiour to those who went abroad preaching the Gospel 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 saith he 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 An evident argument that the Apostle doth not intend any sort of Elders dictinct from these ordained Presbyters of the Cities is from that very argument which the greatest friends to Lay-Elders draw out of this Epistle which is from the promiscuous acception of the words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in this very Epistle to Timothy The argument runs thus The Presbyters spoken of by Paul in his Epistle to Timothy are Scripture-Bishops but Lay-Elders are not Scripture-Bishops therefore these cannot here be meant The major is their own from 1 Tim. 3. 1. compared with 4. 14. Those which are called Presbyters in one place are Bishops in another and the main force of the argument lies in the promiscuous use of Bishop and Presbyter now then if Lay-Elders be not such Bishops then they are not Pauls Presbyters now Pauls Bishops must be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 fit to teach and therefore no
Metropolis of Macedonia and therefore the Bishops there mentioned could not be the Bishops of the several Cities under the jurisdiction of Philippi but must be understood of the Bishops resident in that City We begin with it in the Civil sense which is the foundation of the other It is confessed not to have been a Metropolis during its being called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 it being by Pausanias called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 By Theophylact out of an old Geographer as it is supposed it is said to be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and is it not very improbable that so small a City as it is acknowledged to be by Dio and others should be the Metropolis of Macedonia where were at least one hundred and fifty Cities as Pliny and Pomponius Mela tell us by boâ—h whom Philippi is plâ—ced in Thracia and not in Macedonia But two arguments are brought to prove Philippi to have been a Metropolis the first is from St. Luke calling it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Acts 16. 12. The first City of that Part of Macedonia but rendred by the learned Doctor the prime City of the province of Macedonia but it would be worth knowing where 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in all the Notitiae of the Roman Empire was translated a Province and it is evident that Luke calls it the first City not ratione dignitatis but ratione 〈◊〉 in regard of its scituation and not its dignity So Camerarius understands Luke hanc esse primam coloniam paâ—tis seu Plagae Macedonicae nimirum a Thracia vicinia iter in Macedoniam ordiens It is the first City of that part of Macedonia when one goes from Thracia into it And so it appears by Dio describing the scituation of Philippi that it was the next town to Neapolis only the Mountain Symbolon comeing between them and Neapolis being upon the shore and Philippi built up in the plain near the Mountain Pangaeus where Brutus and Cassius incamped themselves its being then the first City of entrance into Macedonia proves no more that it was the Metropolis of Macodonia then that Calice is of France or Dover of England But it is further pleaded that Philippi was a Colonie and therefore it is most probable that the seat of the Roman Judicature was there But to this I answer first that Philippi was not the only Colonie in Macedonia for Pliny reckons up Cassandria Paria and others for which we must understand that Macedonia was long since made a Province by Paulus and in the division of the Roman Provinces by Augustus Strabo reckons it with Illyricum among the Provinces belonging to the Roman people and Senate and so likewise doth Dio. But it appears by Suetonius that Tiberius according to the custom of the Roman Emperours in the danger of War in the Provinces took it into his own hands but it was reâ—urned by Claudius to the Senatâ— again together with Achaia thence Dio speaking of Macedonia in the time of Tiberius saith it was governed 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is by those who were 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the praefecti Casaris such as were sent by the Emperour to be his Presidents in the provinces the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 were the Proconsuli who were chosen by lot after their Consulship into the several Provinces and therefore Dio expresseth Claudius his returning Macedonia into the Senates hands by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 he put it to the choyce of the Senate again Now Macedonia having been thus long a Province oâ— the Roman Empire what probability is there because Philippi was a Colonie therefore it must be the Metropolis of Macedonia Secondly We find not the least evidence either in Scripture or elsewhere that the Proconsul of Macedonia had his residence at Philippi yea we have some evidence against it out of Scripture Acts 16 20 22. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and brought them to the Magistrates if there had been the Tribunal of a Proconsul here we should certainly have had it mentâ—oned as Gallio Proconsul of Achaia is mentioned in a like case at Corinth Acts 18. 12. Two sorts of Magistrates are here expressed the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which seem to be the Rulers of the City the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to be the Duumviri of the Colonie or else the Deputies of the Proconsul residing there but I incline rather to the former 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 being only a Duumvir but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is a Praetor as Heinsius observes from the Glossary of H. Stephen For every Colonie had a Duumvirate to rule it answering to the Consuls and Praetors at Rome But all this might have been spared when we consider how evident it is that Thessalonica was the Metropolis of Macedonia as appears by Antipater in the Greek Epigram 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And the Praefectus prâ—torio Illyâ—ici had 〈…〉 dence aâ— Thâ—ssalonica as Theodoreâ— tells us 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Thâ—ssalonica was a great populous City where the Leiutenant of Illyricum did reside and so in probability did the Viâ—arius Macedonia It is called the Metropolis of Macedonia likewise by Socrâ—â—â—s and in the Ecclesiastical sense it is so called by Aetius the Bishop thereof in the Council of Sardicaâ— and Carolus à Sancto Paulo thinks it was not only the Metropolis of the Province of Macedonia but of the whole Diocèâ—s which in the East was much larger then the Province I suppose he means that which answered to the Vâ—carius Macedoniae And thence in the Councils of Ephesus and Chalcedon the subscription of the Bishop of Thâ—ssalonicâ— waâ— next to the Patriarchs But for Philippi the same Author acknowledgeth it not to have been a Metropolitan Church in the first six Centuries but after that Macedonia was divided into prima and secunda which was after the divâ—sion of it in the Empire into prima and salutaris then Philippi came to have the honorary Title of a Metropolitan although in Hierocles his Notitia Philippi is placed as the twenty first City under the Metropoles of Thâ—ssalonica So much to evidence the weakness of the first pillar viz. that these Cities were Metropoles in the civil sense and this being taken away the other falls of its self for if the Apostles did model the Ecclesiastical Government according to the Civil then Metropolitan Churches were planted only in Metropolitan Cities and these being cleared not to have been the latter it is evident they were not the former But however let us see what evidence is brought of such a subordination of all other Churches to the Metropolitans by the institution of the Apostles The only evidence produced out of Scripture for such a subordination and dependance of the Churches of lesser Cities upon the greater is from Actâ— 16. 1 4 compared with Acts 15. 23. the argument runs thus The
question was started at Antioch Acts 14. 26. with Acts 15. 2. from thence they sent to Ierusalem for a resolution the decree of the Council there concerns not only Aâ—tioch but Syria and Cilicia which were under the Jurisdiction of Antioch and therefore Metropolitan Church 〈…〉 e jure divino I am afraid the argument would sc 〈…〉 ow its self in the dress of a Syllogism Thus it runs If upon the occasion of the question at Antioch the decree of the Apostles made at Ierusalem concern all the Churches of Syria and Cilicia then all these Churches had a dependance upon the Metropolis of Antioch but the anâ—ecedent is true therefore the consequent Let us see how the argument will do in another â—orm If upon the occasion of the question at Antioch the decree of the Apostles concerned all the Churches of Christians conversing with Jews then all these Churches had dependance upon the Church of Antioch But c. How thankfull would the Papists have been if onely Rome had been put instead of Antiochâ— and then the conclusion had been true what ever the premises were But in good earnest doth the Churches of Syria and Cilicia being bound by this Decree prove their subordination to Antioch or to the Apostles Were they bound because Antioch was their Metropolis or because they were the Apostles who resolved the question but were not the Churches of Phrygia and Galatia bound to observe these decrees as well as others For of these it is said that the Apostles went through the Cities of them delivering the decrees to keep as it is expressed Acts 16. 4. compared with the 6. verse Or do the decrees of the Apostles concern only those to whom they are inscribed and upon whose occasion they are penned Then by the same reason Pauls Epistles being written many of them upon occasions as that to the Corinthians being directed to the Metropolis of Corinth doth only concern the Church of that City and those of Achaia that were subject to the jurisdiction of the City and so for the rest of the Epistles A fair way to make the Word of God of no effect to us because for sooth we live not in obedience to those Metropoles to which the Epistles were directed From whence we are told how many things we may understand by this notion of Metropolitans Especially why Ignatius superscribes his Epistle to the Romans 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to the Church which preâ—ides in the place of the Roman region or the suburbicariâ—n Provinces But let us see whether this place may not be understood better without the help of this notion Casaubon calls it locutionem barbarâ—m Vedelius is more favourable to it and thinks si non elegans saltem viâ—ii libera est and explains it by the suburbicarian Provinces and makes the sense of it to be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the place which is the Roman region and parallels it with the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Luke 9. 10. Bellarmine thinks he hath â—ound the Popes universal power in his 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but methinks the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 should hardly be rendred Orbis universus unless Bellarmine were no more skil'd in Greek then Casaubon thinks he was whom he calls in the pâ—ace forecited hominem Graecarum literarum prorsus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The most ingenuous conjecture concerning this place is that of our learned Mr. Thorndike The word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 saith he is here used as many times besides speaking of those places which a man would neither call Cities nor Towns as Acts 27 2. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 being to sail by the places of Asia 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 it is plain it signifies the countrey 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 then must necessarily signifie here the Vaticane lying in the Fields as a suburb to Rome and being the place where St. Peter was buried and where the Iews of Rome then dwâ—lt as we learn by Philo legatione ad Caium out of whom he produceth a large place to that purpose and so makes this the Church of the Jewish Christians the Vaticane being then the Iewry of Rome but there being no clear evidence of any such distinction of Churches there and as little reason why Ignatius should write to the Church of the Jewish Christians and not to the Church of the Gentile Christians I therefore embrace his sense of the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for the Vatican but explain it in another way viz. as we have already shewed that the chief places of meeting for the Christians in Gentile Rome was in the Coemeteries of the Martyrs now these Coemeteria were all of them without the City and the Coemeteria where Peter Linus Cletus and some other of the Primitive Martyrs lay interr'd in the Vatican beyond the River Tiber. So Damasus in the life of Cletus Qui etiam sepultus est juxta corpus B. Petri in Vaticano The Church then in the pâ—ace of the region of the Romans is the Christian-Church of Rome assembling chiefly in the Coemeteries of the Vatican or any other of those Vaults which were in the Fields at a good distance from the City But yet there is one argument more for Metropolitans and that is from the importance of the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which is taken to signifie both the City and Countrey and so the inscription of Clemens his Epistle is explained 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. e. the Church of God dwelling about Rome to the Church dwelling about Corinth whereby is supposed to be comprehended the whole Territories which being these were Metropoles takes in the whole Province And so Polycarp 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 But all this ariseth from a mistake of the signification of the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which signifies not so much accolere as incolere and therefore the old Latin Version renders it Ecclâ—siae Dei quae est Philippis 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 one that removes from one City to sojourn in another And the ground of attributing that name to the Christian Churches was either because that many of the first Christians being Jews they did truly 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 being as strangers out of their own countrey or else among the Christians because by reason of their continual persecutions they were still put in mind of their flitting uncertain condition in the World their 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 countrey citizenship being in Heaven Of this the Apostles often tell them from hence iâ— came to signifie the Society of such Christians so living together which as it encreased so the notion of the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 encreased and so went from the City into the countrey and came not from the countrey into the City for if 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 should be taken for accolere then it necessarily follows that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 cannot signifie the Church of Rome and the Territories belonging to it but the Church adjacent to
ordination of a Bishop Subscriptio clericorum Honoratorum testimonium Ordinis consensus plebis and in the same chapter speaking of the choyce of the Bishop he saith it was done subscribentibus plus minus septuagintâ— Presbyteris And therefore it is observed that all the Clergy conâ—urred to the choyce even of the Bishop of Rome till after the time of that Hildebrand called Greg. 7. in whose time Popery came to Age thence Casaubon calls it Haeresin Hildebrandinam Cornelius Bishop of Rome was chosen Clericoram pene omnium testimonio and in the Council at Rome under Sylvâ—ster it is decreed that none of the Clergy should be ordained nisi cum tota adunata Ecclesia Many instances are brought from the Councils of Carthage to the same purpose which I pass over as commonly known It was accounted the matter of an accusation against Chrysostom by his enemies 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that he ordained without the Council and assistance of his Clergy The pâ—esence of the Clergy at Councils hath been already shewed Thus we see how when the Church of the City was enlarged into the Countrey the power of the Governours of the Churches in the City was extended with it The next step observable in the Churches encrease was when several of these Churches lying together in one Province did associate one with another The Primitive Church had a great eye to the preserving unity among all the members of it and thence they kept so strict a correspondency among the several Bishops in the Commercium Formatarum the formula of writing which to prevent deceit may be seen in Iustellus his Notes on the Codex Canonum Ecclesiae Africanae and for a maintaining of nearer correspondency among the Bishops themselves of a Province it was agreed among themselves for the better carrying on of their common work to call a Provincial Synod twice every year to debate all causes of concernment there among themselves and to agree upon such wayes as might most conduce to the advancing the common interest of Christianity Of these Tertullian speaks Aguntur praeceptâ— per Gracias illas certis in locis Concilia ex universis Ecclesâ—is per quae altiora quaeque in communi tractantur ipsa repraesentatio nominis Christiani magna vâ—neratione celebratur Of these the thirty eighth Canon Apostolical as it is called expresly speaks which Canons though not of authority sufficient to ground any right upon may yet be allowed the place of a Testimony of the practice of the Primitive Church especially towards the third Century 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Twice a year a Synod of Bishops was to be kept for discussing matters of faith and resolving matters of practice To the same purpose the Council of Antioch A. D. 343 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 To these Councils the Presbyters and Deacons came as appears by that Canon of the Council of Antioch and in the seventh Canon of the Nicene Council by Alphon us Pisanus the same custome is decâ—eed but no such thing occurrs in the Codex Canonum either of Tilius or Iustellus his Edition and the Arabick ediâ—â—â—â— of that Council is conceived to have been compiled above four hundred years after the Council set But however we see evidence enough of this practice of celebrating Provincial Synods twice a year now in the assembling of these Bishops together for mutual counsel in their affairs there was a necessity of some order to be observed There was no difference as to the power of the Bishops themselves who had all equal authority in their several Churches and none over one another For Episcopatus unus â—st cujus â— singulis in solidum pars tenetur as Cyprian speaks and as Ierome Ubicunq Episcopus fuerit sive Romae sive Eugubii sive Constantinopoli sive Râ—egii sive Alexandriae sive Tanis ejusdem est meriti ejusdem est Sacerdotii Potentia divitiarum paupertatis humilitas vel sublimiorem vel inferiorem Episcopum non facit Caterum omnes Apostolorum successores sunt There being then no difference between them no man calling himself Episcopum Episcoporum as Cyprian elsewhere speaks some other way must be found out to preserve order among them and to moderate the affairs of the Councils and therefore it was determined in the Council of Antioch that he that was the Bishop of the Metropolis should have the honour of Metropolitan among the Bishops 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 because of the great confluence of people to that City therefore he should have the prâ—heminence above the rest We see how far they are from attributing any Divine Right to Metropolitaus and therefore the rights of Metropolitans are called by the sixth Canon of the Nicene Council 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which had been a dishonourable introduction for the Metropolitan Rights had they thought them grounded upon Apostolical institution Nothing more evident in antiquity then the honour of Metropolitans depending upon their Sees thence when any Cities were raised by the Emperour to the honour of Metropoles their Bishop became a Metropolitan as is most evident in Iustiniana prima and for it there are Canons in the Councils decreeing it but of this more afterwards The chief Bishop of Africa was only called primae sedis Episcop 〈…〉 thence we have a Canon in the Codex Ecclesiae African◠〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 That the Bishop of the chief See should not be called the Exarch of the Priests or chief Priest or any thing of like nature but only the Bishop of the chief seat Therefore it hath been well observed that the African Churches did retain longest the Primitive simplicity and humility among them and when the voyce was said to be heard in the Church upon the flowing in of riches Hodie venenum effusum est in Ecclesiam by the working of which poyson the spirits of the Prelates began to swell with pride and ambition as is too evident in Church History only Africa escaped the infection most and resisted the tyrannical incroachments of the Roman Bishop with the greatest magnanimity and courage as may be seen by the excellent Epistle of the Council of Carthage to Boniface Bishop of Rome in the Codex Ecclesiae Africanae So thaâ— however Africa hath been alwayes fruitfull of Monsters yet in that ambitious age it had no other wonder but only this that it should escape so free from that typhus saecularis as they then called it that monstrous itch of pride and ambition From whence we may well rise to the last step of the power of the Church which was after the Empire grew Christian and many Provinces did associate together then the honour and power of Patriarchs came upon the stage And now began the whole Christian world to be the Cock pitt wherein the two great Prelates of Rome and Constantinople strive with their greatest force for mastery of one another and the whole world
was observed next to the Scriptures not from any Obligation of the things themselves but from the conduceableneâ—s of those things as they judged them to the preserving the Peace and Unity of the Church CHAP. VIII An Inquiry into the Iudgement of Reformed Divines concerning the unalterable Divine Right of particular Forms of Church-Government wherein it is made appear that the most â—minent Dâ—vines of the Reformation did never conceive any one Form necessary manifested by three arguments 1. From the judgment of those who make the Form of Church-Government mutable and to depend upon the wisdom of the Magistrate and Church This cleared to have been the judgement of most Divines of the Church of England since the Reformation Archbishop Cranmers judgment with others of the Reformatiion in Edward the Sixth's time now first published from his authentick MS. The same ground of setling Episcopacy in Queen Elizabeth's time The judgement of Archbishop Wâ—itgift Bishop Bridges Dr. â—oe Mr. Hooker largely to that purpose in King Iames his time The Kings own Opinion Dr. Suâ—clâ—ffe Since of â—rakanâ—horp Mr. Hales Mr. Chillingworth The Testimony of Forraign Divines to the same purpose Chemnitius Zanchy French Divines Peter Moulâ—n Fregevil Blondel Bochartus Amyraldus Other learned men Groâ—â—uâ— Lord Bacon c. 2. Those who look upon equality as the Primitive Form yet judge Episcopacy lawful Augustane Confession Melâ—nchthon Arâ—icuâ—â— Smaâ—caldici Prince of Anhalt Hyperius Hemingius The practice of most Forraign Churches Câ—lvin and Beza both approving Episcopacy and Diocesan Churches Salmasius c. 3. Those who judge Episcopacy to be the Primitive Form yet look not on it as necâ—ssary Bishop Iewel Fulk Field Bishop Downam Bishop Bancâ—oâ—t Bishop Morton Bishop Andrews Saravia Francis Mason and others The Conclusion hence laid in Order to Peace Principles conducing thereto 1. Prudence must be used in Church-Government at last confessed by all parties Independents in elective Synods and Church Covenants admission of Members number in Congregations Presbyterians in Classes and Synods Lay-Elders c. Eâ—iscopal in Diocesses Causes Rites c. 2. That Prudence best which comes nearest Primitive practice A Presidency for life over an Ecclesiastical Senate shewed to be that Form in order to it Presbyteries to be restored Diocesses lâ—ssened Provincial Synods kept twice a year The reasonableness and easiness of accommodation shewed The whole concluded HAving thus far proceeded through Divine assistance in our intended method and having found nothing determining the necessity of any one Form of Government in the several Laws of Nature and Christ nor in the practice of Apostles or Primitive Church the only thing possible to raise a suspition of Novelty in this opinion is that it is contrary to the judgement of the several Churches of the Reformation I know it is the last Asylum which many run to when they are beaten off from their imaginary Fancies by pregnant Testimonies of Scripture and Reason to shelter themselves under the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of some particular persons to whom their understandings are bored in perpetual slavery But if men would but once think their understandings at age to judge for themselves and not make them live under a continual Pupillage and but take the pains to travel over the several Churches of the Reformation they would find themselves freed of many strange misprisions they were possessed with before and understand far better the ground and reason of their pitching upon their several Forms than they seem to do who found all things upon a Divine Right I believe there will upon the most impartial survey scarce be one Church of the Reformation brought which doth imbrace any Form of Government because it looked upon that Form as onely necessary by an unalterable standing Law but every one took up that Form of Government which was judged most suitable to the state and condition of their severall Churches But that I may the better make this appear I shall make use of some Arguments whereby to demonstrate that the most eminent Divines that have lived since the Reformation have been all of this mind That no one Form is determined as necessary for the Church of God in all ages of the World For if many of them have in thesi asserted the Form of Church-Government mutable if those who have thought an equality among Ministers the Primitive Form have yet thought a Government by Episcopacy lawfull and usefull If lastly those who have been for Episcopacy have not judged it necessary then I suppose it will be evident that none of them have judged any one Form taken exclusively of others to be founded upon an unalterable Right For whatsoever is so founded is made a necessary duty in all Churches to observe it and it is unlawfull to vary from it or to change it according to the prudence of the Church according to the state and condition of it I now therefore undertake to make these things out in their order First I begin with those who have in thesi asserted the mutability of the Form of Church Government Herein I shall not follow the English humour to be more acquainted with the state of Forreign places then their own but it being of greatest concernment to know upon what accounts Episcopal Government was setled among our selves in order to our submission to it I shall therefore make inquiry into the judgement of those persons concerning it who either have been instrumental in setling it or the great defenders of it after its setlement I doubt not but to make it evident that before these late unhappy times the main ground for setling Episcopal Government in this Nation was not accounted any pretence of Divine Right but the conveniency of that Form of Church Government to the State and condition of this Church at the time of its Reformation For which we are to consider that the Reformation of our Church was not wrought by the Torrent of a popular fury nor the Insurrection of one part of the Nation against another but was wisely gravely and maturely debated and setled with a great deal of consideration I meddle not with the times of Henry 8. when I will not deny but the first quickning of the Reformation might be but the matter of it was as yet rude and undigested I date the birth of it from the first setlement of that most excellent Prince Edward 6. the Phosphorus of our Reformation Who A. D. 1547. was no sooner entred upon his Throne but some course was presently taken in order to Reformation Commissioners with Injunctions were dispatched to the several parts of the Land but the main business of the Reformation was referred to the Parliament call'd November 4. the same year when all former Statutes about Religion were recall'd as may be seen at large in Mr. Fox and Liberty allowed for professing the Gospel according to the principles of Reformation all banished persons for Religion being call'd home Upon this for the better establishing of
in by every one of them singly and subscribed with their own hands all which I have perused these following persons Thomas Arch Bishop of Canterbury Edward Arch-bishop of Yorke the Bishop of Rochester Edmund Bishop of London Robert Bishop of Carlisle Dr. George Day Dr. Thomas Robertson Dr. I. Redmayne Dr. Edward Leighton Dr. Symon Matthew Dr. William Tresham Dr. Richard Cozen Dr. Edgeworth Dr. Owen Oglethorp Dr. Thyrleby These all gave in their several resolutions in papers to the Questions propounded with their names subscribed a far more prudent way then the confusion of verbal and tedious disputes all whose judgements are accurately summed up and set down by the Arch-bishop of Canterbury himself Their resolutions contain distinct answers to several Sets of questions propounded to them The first Set contained several Questions about the Mass about the instituting receiving nature celebration of it and whether in the Mass it be convenient to use such speech as the people may understand whether the whole were fit to be translated or only some part of it with several other questions of the same nature The second Set is more pertinent to our purpose wherein are 17 Questions proposed to be resolved Ten of them belong to the number of Sacraments the other 7. concern Church Government The Questions are these Whether the Appostells lacking a higher power as in not having a Christian-King among them made Bishoppes by that necessity or by auctorite given them of God Whether Bishops or Priests were first and if the Priests were first then the Priest made the Bishop Whether a Bishop hath auctorite to make a Priest by the Scripture or no and whether any other but onely a Bishop may make a Priest Whether in the New Testament be required any consecration of a Bishop and Priest or onely appointeinge to the office be sufficient Whether if it fortuned a Prince Christien lerned to conquer certen domynyons of Infidells having non but the temporall lerned men with him it be defended by Gods Law that be and they should preche and teche the word of God there or no and also make and constitute Priests or noe Whether it be forefended by Goddes Law that if it so fortuned that all the Bishopps and Priests were dedde and that the word of God shuld there unpreached the Sacrament of baptisme and others unministred that the King of that region shulde make Bishoppes and Priests to supply the same or noe Whether a Bishop or a Priest may excommunicate and for what crimes and whether they only may excommunicate by Goddes Law These are the questions to which the answers are severally returned in distinct papers all of them bound together in a large Volume by Archbishop Cranmer and every one subscribed their names and some their seals to the Papers delivered in It would be too tedious a work to set down their several opinions at large only for the deserved reverence all bear to the name and memory of that most worthy Prelate and glorious Martyr Archbishop Cranmer I shall set down his answer distinctly to every one of these questions and the answers of some others to the more material questions to our purpose To the 9. Q. All Christian Princes have committed unto them immediately of God the holle cure of all their subjects as well concerning the administration of Goddes word for the cure of soul as concerning the ministration of things Political and civil governaunce And in both theis ministrations thei must have sundry ministers under them to supply that which is appointed to their several office The Cyvile ministers under the Kings Majesty in this realme of England be those whom yt shall please his highness for the tyme to put in auctorite under him as for example the Lord Chancellour Lord Treasurer Lord Greate Master Lord privy seal Lord Admyral Mayres Shryves c. The Ministers of Gods wourde under his Majesty be the Bishops Parsons Vicars and such other Priests as be appointed by his highnes to that ministration as for example the Bishop of Canterbury the Bishop of Duresme the Bishop of Winchester the Parson of Wynwicke c. All the said officers and ministers as well of th' one sorte as the other be appointed assigned and elected in every place by the Laws and orders of Kings and Princes In the admission of many of these officers bee diverse comely ceremonies and solemnities used which be not of necessity but only for a good order and semely fashion For if such offices and ministrations were committed without such solemnitye thei were nevertheles truely committed And there is no more promise of God that grace is given in the committing of the Ecclesiastical office then it is in the committing of the Cyvile In the Apostles time when there was no Christien Princes by whose authority Ministers of Gods Word might be appointed nor synnes by the sword corrected there was no remedie then for the correction of vice or appoynteinge of ministers but onely the consent of Christien multitude amonge themselfe by an uniforme consent to follow the advice and perswasion of such persons whom God had most endued with the spirit of wisdome and counsaâ—le And at that time for as much as Christian people had no sword nor Governer among them thei were constrained of necessity to take such Curates and Priests as either they knew themselfes to bee meet thereunto or else as were commended unto them by other that were so replete with the spirit of God with such knowledge in the profession of Christ such wisdome such conversation and counsell that they ought even of very conscience to give credit unto them and to accept such as by theym were presented And so some tyme the Appostles and other unto whom God had given abundantly his spirit sent or appointed Ministers of Gods word sometime the people did chose such as they thought meete thereunto And when any were appointed or sent by the Appostles or other the people of their awne voluntary will with thanks did accept them not for the supremitie Imperie or dominion that the Apostells had over them to command as their Princes or Masters but as good people readie to obey the advice of good counsellours and to accept any thing that was necessary for their edification and benefit The Bishops and Priests were at one time and were not two things but both one office in the beginning of Christs Religion A Bishop may make a Priest by the Scriptures and so may Princes and Governours alsoe and that by the auctoritie of God committed them and the people alsoe by their election For as we reade that Bishops have done it so Christien Emperours and Princes usually have done it And the people before Christien Princes were commonly did elect their Bishops and Priests In the New Testament he that is appointed to be a Bishop or a Priest needeth no consecration by the Scripture for election or appointeing thereto
ad ordinem ad decorum ad aedificationem Ecclesiae pro co tempore pertinentibus And in the next Section Novimus enim Deum nostrum Deum esse Ordinis non confusionis Ecclesiam servari ordine perdi autem 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 qua de causa multos etiam diversos non solum olim in Israele verum etiam post in Ecclesia ex Iudaeis Gentibus collecta ministrorum ordines instituit eandem etiam ob causam liberum reliquit Ecclesiis ut plures adderent vel non adderent modo ad aedificationem fieret He asserts it to be in the Churches power and liberty to add several orders of Ministers according as it judgeth them tend to edification and saith he is far from condemning the Course of the Primitive Church in erecting one as Bishop over the Presbyters for better managing Church Affairs yea Arch-Bishops Metropolitans and Patriarchs as instituted by the Primitive Church before the Nicene Council he thinks may be both excused and defended although afterward they degenerated into Tyranny and Ambition And in his Observations upon his Confession penned chiefly upon the occasion of the exceptions of Magnus quidam Vir some will guess who that was taken at the free delivery of his mind concerning the Polity of the Primitive Church he hath expressions to this purpose That what was unanimously determined by the Primitive Church without any contradiction to Scripture did come from the Holy Spirit Hinc fit saith he ut quae sint hujuscemodi ea ego improbare nec velim nec audeam bona conscientia Quis autem ego sim qui quod tota Ecclesia approbavit improbem Such things saith he as are so determined I neither will nor can with a safe Conscience condemn For who am I that I should condemn that which the whole Church of God hath approved A Sentence as full of judgement as modesty And that he might shew he was not alone in this opinion he produceth two large and excellent Discourses of Martin Bucer concerning the Polity of the ancient Church which he recites with approbation the one out of his Commentaries on the Ephesians the other de Disciplina Clericali whereby we have gained another Testimony of that famous and peaceable Divine whose judgement is too large to be here inserted The same opinion of Zanchy may be seen in his Commentaries upon the fourth Command wherein he asserts no particular Form to be prescribed but onely general Rules laid down in Scripture that all be done to Edification speaking of the Originall of Episcopacy which came not dispositione Divina but consuetudine Ecclesiastica atque ea quidem minime improbanda neque enim hunc ordinem prohibuit Christus sed potius regulam generalem reliquit per Apostolum nt in Ecclesia omnia fiant ad edificationem It is then most clear and evident that neither Bucer Chemnitius or Zanchy did look upon the Church as so bound up by any immutable Form of Church-Government laid down in Scripture but it might lawfully and laudably alter it for better edification of the Church For these Learned Divines conceiving that at first in the Church there was no difference between Bishop and Presbyter and commending the Polity of the Church when Episcopacy was set in a higher order they must of necessity hold that there was no obligation to observe that Form which was used in Apostolical times Our next inquiry is into the opinion of the French Church and the eminent Divines therein For Calvin and Bâ—zÌ„a we have designed them under another rank At present we speak of those who in Thesi assert the Form of Church-Government mutable The first wee meet with here who fully layes down his opinion as to this matter is Ioh. Fregevil who although in his Palma Christiana he seems to assert the Divine right of Primacy in the Church yet in his Politick Reformer he asserts both Forms of Government by equality and inequality to be lawful And we shall the rather produce his Testimony because of the high Character given of him by the late Reverend Bishop Hall Wise Fregevil a deep head and one that was able to cut even betwixt the League the Church and State His words are these As for the English Government I say it is grounded upon Gods Word so far forth as it keepeth the State of the Clergy instituted in the Old Testament and confirmed in the New And concerning the Government of the French Church so far as concerneth the equality of Ministers it hath the like foundation in Gods Word namely in the example of the Apostles which may suffice to authorize both these Forms of Estate albeit in several times and places None can deny but that the Apostles among themselves were equal as concerning authority albeit there were an Order for their precedency When the Apostles first planted Churches the same being small and in affliction there were not as yet any other Bishops Priests or Deacons but themselves they were the Bishops and Deacons and together served the Tables Those men therefore whom God raiseth up to plant a Church can do no better then after the examples of the Apostles to bear themselves in equal authority For this cause have the French Ministers planters of the Reformed Church in France usurped it howbeit provisionally reserving liberty to alter it according to the occurrences But the equality that rested among the Bishops of the primitive Church did increase as the Churches increased and thence proceeded the Creation of Deacons and afterwards of other Bishops and Priests yet ceased not the Apostles equality in authority but they that were created had not like authority with the Apostles but the Apostles remained as Soveraign Bishops neither were any greater then they Hereof I do inferr that in the State of a mighty and peaceable Church as is the Church of England or as the Church of France is or such might be if God should call it to Reformation the State of the Clergy ought to be preserved For equality will be hurtful to the State and in time breed confusion But as the Apostles continued Churches in their equality so long as the Churches by them planted were small so should equality be applyed in the planting of a Church or so long as the Church continueth small or under persecution yet may it also be admitted as not repugnant to Gods Word in those places where already it is received rather then to innovate anything I say therefore that even in the Apostles times the state of the Clergy increased as the Church increased Neither was the Government under the bondage of Egypt and during the peace of the Land of Canaan alike for Israelites had first Iudges and after their state increased Kings Thus far that Politique Reformer Whose words are so full and pertinent to the scope and drift of this whole Treatise that there is no need of any Commentary to draw them to my sense The
next I shall pitch upon in the French Church is a Triumvirate of three as learned persons in their several wayes as most that Church or any since the reformation hath bred they are Blondel Bochartus and Amyraldus The first is that great Church Antiquary Blondel the known and learned assertor of Ieromes opinion concerning the primitive equality of Presbyters who was likewise of Ieromes mind as to the mutability of that form if the Church saw fit as appears by these words of his speaking of that Form of Ecclesiastical Polity which Hilary speaks of viz. the Eldest Presbyters having the primacy of order above the rest Fac tamen saith he Apostolis non modo non improbantibus sed palam laudantibus ortam ego sanè liberè ab initio observatam Christianisque sive ab Apostolis sive ab eorum discipulis traditam sed ut mutabilem pro usu ac arbitrio Ecclesiae mutandam prout in causâ consimili piae memoriae Crakanthorpius sensis crediderim and not long after Nec concessus capite carentes aut multicipites minùs horremus quam fervidiores Hierarchici quibus indagandum curatiùs incumbit An pastorum cuiquam quocunque ritulo nunâ— gaudeat divino jure 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 eaque perpetua decreta sit An verò in Arbitrio Ecclesiae ipse qui praeest Ecclesiae Spiritus religuerit ut quocunque modo liberet sibi de capite 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 collegia providerent Whereby that most learned Writer for Presbyterie as some have call'd him evidently asserts the mutability of the particular Form of Church Government and that it is left to the prudence and arbitrement of the Church to conclude and determine in what way and manner the Rulers of the Church shall act for moderating the common concernments of the Church The next is the learned and ingenuous Bochartus who ex professo doth assert the opinion I have been pleading thus long in the behalf of in his Epistle to Dr. Morley He having declared himself to be of Ieromes mind as to the Apostles times that the Churches were governed communi consilio Presbyterorum and withall asserting the great antiquity of Episcopacy as arising-soon after the Apostles times and that magno cum fructu as a very usefull Form of Government He subjoyns these words directly overthrowing the Dâ—vine Right of either Form of Government by Episcopacy or Presbyterie Nâ—â— Apostolorum praxim puto vim habuisse legis in rebus suâ— natura 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Proinde tam qui Presbyteralem quam Episcopalem ordinem juris divini esse asserunt videntur 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And therefore asserts that the Form of Government must be determined as that in the State is according to the suitableness of it to the state temper and condition of the people it is intended for The last is judicious Amyraldus whom one deservedly calls One of the greatest wits of this Age. In his proposals for peace with the Lutherans speaking of the different Forms of Church-Government in the several Churches of the Reformation he layes down this for a foundation of union among the several Churches Quando igitur Christus quidem Apostoli hoc diserté constituerunt Debere particulares Ecclesias omnes gubernari à Pastoribus aliquâ regiminis forma temperari quod ipsa rei necessitas flagitat quae verò regiminis ista forma potissimùm esse debeat utrum alii aliis auctoritate praecellant necne neque rei natura definivit neque à Christo aut Apostolis aeque disertè constitutum est id primò in pacificatione statuendum esse videtur ut quo jure hactenus fuerunt Ecclesiarum Evangelicarum Pastores eodem porrò esse pergant neque aliae aliarum statum convellere nitantur That every Church be permitted freely to enjoy its own Form since some kind of Government is necessary in all Churches but no one Form is prescribed by Christ or his Apostles and more fully afterwards to the same purpose Quemadmodum igitur etsi Politiarum formae aliae aliis aptiores ad finem illum Politicum obtinendum accomodatiores esse videntur Deus tamen qui omnis societatis auctor est atque custos noluit omnes hominum coetus eodem jure teneri sed cuique communitati potestatem esse voluit suas leges sibi condendi quas ipse divinâ suâ auctoritate sancit sic dubitandum quidem non est quin ex variis illis administrandarum Ecclesiarum rationibus nonnullae sint aliquanto quam aliae conducibiliores ad eum finem adipiscendum quem religio constitutune habet At voluit tamen sapientissimus indulgentissimusque Deus cuique Ecclesiaejus esse sibi leges eas ferendi quae ad disciplinam spectant ad ordinem conservandum Whereby he grants as much freedome and liberty to every Church to prescribe Laws to its self for the regulating the affairs of the Church as to any State to pitch upon its particular rules and wayes of Government So the Church do in its orders but observe the general rules laid down in Scripture Having thus fully shewed how many of he most eminent Divines of the Reformation have embraced this opinion of the mutability of the Form of Church-Government both in our own and Forraign Churches who were far from being the Proselytes of Erastus it were easie to add Mantissae loco the concurrent judgement of many very learned men as the excellent Hugo Grotius my Lord Bacon Sir Will. Morice and others who have in print delivered this as their judgement but seeing such is the temper of ma ny as to cast by their judgements with an opinion of their partiality towards the Government of the Church I have therefore contented my self with the judgement of Divines most of them of the highest rank since the Reformation whose judgements certainly will be sufficient to remove that prejudice wherewith this opinion hath been entertained among the blind followers of the several parties So much for those who in terms assert the Form of Church-Government not to depend upon an unalterable Law but to be left to the prudence and discretion of every particular Church to determine it according to its suitableness to the state condition and temper of the people whereof it consists and conduceableness to the ends for which it is instituted We come now in the second place to those who though they look upon equality of Ministers as the Primitive Form yet do allow Episcopal Government in the Church as a very lawful and useful constitution By which it is evident that they did not judge the Primitive Form to carry an universal obligation along with it over all Churches ages and places Upon this account our learned Crakanthorp frees all the Reformed Churches from the charge of Aërianisin laid upon them by the Archbishop of Spalato when he licked up his former vomit in his Consilium reditûs Crakanthorps words are these speaking of
is expresly and fully the judgement of that most Reverend and Learned man Th. Beza as he declares it himself Essentialefuit in eo de quo hic agimus quod ex Dei Ordinatione perpetud necesse fuit est erit ut in Presbyterio quispiam loco dignitate primus actioni gubernandae praesit cum eo quod ipsi divinitus attributum est jure Accidentale autem fuit quod Presbyteri in hac 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 alii aliis per vices initio succedebant qui 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 modus paulatim postea visus est mutandus ut unus quispiam judicio caeterorum compresbyterorum delectus Presbyterio 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 esset permaneret It will be worth our while truly to state the Question of Church Government between the Church of England and that of Geneva in the time of Queen Elizabeth and thereby we shall see how small the difference was between them That the Churches in the Primitive times did take in the Christians in whole Cities and adjoyning Territories is acknowledged on both sides Calvin and Beza being both express in it and the Constitution of the Church of Geneva speaks as much Vnicuique civitati saith Calvin erat attributa certa regio quae Presbyteros inde sumeret velut corpori Ecclesiae illius accenserentur In oppido cujusque Dioeceseos saith Beza praecipuo primus Presbyter c. in quotidianâ communi jurisdictione praeerat caeteris tum urbanis tum aliis ejus regionis compresbyteris i. e. toti Dioecesi That the Government of the City did take in the City and Territories is likewise acknowledged by them That for more convenient order there was one to preside over the Ecclesiastical Senate is confessed as essential by Beza and Calvin acknowledgeth that even in Apostolical times non eam fuisse tunc aequalitatem inter Ecclesiae ministros quin unus aliquis authoritate consilio praeâ—sset There was no such equality among the Ministers of the Church but that some one was over the rest in authority and counsell Wherein then lay the difference For we have already seen that our Great Divines then did not look upon their form of Government as necessary but only lawfull and Calvin and Beza would not be thought to prescribe their form to other Churches All the difference then was not Whether their form of Government was founded on Divine Right not Whether Episcopacy in the Church was lawfull or no not Whether Diocesan Churches were unlawfull or Whether every Congregation should have an Ecclesiastical Senate But Whether it were more agreeable to the Primitive form that the President of the Ecclesiastical Senate should have only an order among or a degree above the Senate its self But chiefly it was Whether in the present state of the Reformed Churches it were more convenient wholly to lay aside the form of Government by Bishops which had been so much abused in the Roman Church and to reduce all Ministers of the Gospel to an equality with only a Presidency of order thereby to free themselves from the imputation of Ambition and to prevent it in others or else it were more prudent only to retrench the abuses of Episcopacy under the Papacy and to reduce it to that form wherein it was practiced in the Church before the tyranny and Usurpation of the Roman Bishop had ingrossed all Ecclesiastical power into his own hands The former part was embraced generally by the Reformed Churches the latter by our Church of England so that the Question was not about Divine Right but about a matter of prudence not What form was setled by a Law of Christ but what form was suitable to the present state of the Churches of the Reformation Therefore we see none of these forraign Divines did charge the Government of this Church with unlawfulness but inconveniency as it was a step to pride and ambition and an occasion whereby men might do the Church injury by the excess of their power if they were not men of an excellent temper and moderation Thence that prediction of Padre Paule that the Church of England would then find the inconveniency of Episcopacy when a high-spirited Bishop should once come to rule that Church and so Beza when he had freed the Bishops of the Reformation from that imputation of Lording it over their Brethren which he had charged the Roman Bishops with yet he adds that he would beg them rather to lay down their power then to transmit that power to those after them hanc ipsorum moderationem aequitatem minimè forsan sequuturis Who it may be were not like to succeed them in their meekness and moderation What just reason there was for such fears or may be still let those judge who are fittest to do it those I mean who have the power not only to redress but prevent abuses incroaching by an irregular power It was not then any unlawfulness in the Government of Episcopacy its self but its lyableness to abuses which made the Reformed Churches reduce Modern Episcopacy into a meer Presidency of Order which was not so lyable to the same inconveniences A clear evidence that they judged not the Government unlawfull is their often profession of a ready and chearfull obedience to Bishops if they would embrace the Gospel and stand up in defence of the true Doctrine For which we have the testimony of George Prince of Anhalt in the Preface to his Sermon about false Prophets speaking of Bishops and Arch-Bishops Utinam sicut nomina gerunt titulos ita se reipsa praestarent Episcopos Ecclesia Utinam Evangelio docerent consona ipsoque Ecclesias fideliter regerent O quam libenter quantaque cum cordis laetitia pro Episcopis ipsos habere revereri morem gerere debitam jurisdictionem ordinationem eis tribuere eaque sine recusatione frui vellemus id quod nos semper D. Lutherus etiam saepissime tam ore quam scriptis imo in concione publica in Cathedrali Templâ— Marsburgensi contestati promisimusâ— He professeth it to be both his own judgement and Luthers that if Bishops would but teach and rule their Churches according to the Word of God they would obey them with all chearfulness and joy of heart To the same purpose Melancthon writing to Camerarius By what right or Law may we dissolve the Ecclesiastical Polity if the Bishops will grant us that which in reason they ought to grant and though it were lawful for us so to do yet surely it were not expedient Luther was ever of this opinion The same is professed by Calvin and that according to his temper in a higher manner Verum autem nobis si contribuant Hierarchiam in qua emineant Episcopi ut Christo subesse non recusent ut ab illo tanquam ab unico Capite pendeant ad ipsum referantur in qua si fraternam charitatem inter se colant
non alio modo quam ejus veritate colligati tum vero nullo non Anathemate dignos fatemur si qui erunt qui eam non reverenter sumnia cum obedientia observent If Bishops would but submit themselves to Christ those that would not then submit themselves to them he thinks there is no Anathema of which they are not worthy Iacobus Heerbrandus Divinity Professor at Tubinge professeth it to be the most found constitution of Church-government wherein every Diocess had its Bishop and every Province an Arch-bishop Saluberrimum esset si singulae Provinciae suos Episcopos Episcopi suos Archiepiscopos haberent Hemingius acknowledgeth a disparity among Church Officers and accounts it a piece of barbarism to remove it Quanquam enim potestas omnium eadem est ministrorum quantum ad spiritualem jurisdictionem attiâ—et tamen dispares dignitatis ordines gradus sunt idque partim Jure divino partim Ecclesia approbatione But he qualifies what he had said of Ius divinum by his following words Ecclesia cui Dominus potestatem dedit in aedificationem ordinem ministrorum instituit pro commodo suo ut omnia sint rite ordinata ad instaurationem corporis Christi Hinc Ecclesia purior secuta tempora Apostolorum fecit alios Patriarchas alios Chorepiscopos alios Pastores Catechetas and afterwards Inter ministros agnoscit etiam Ecclesia nostra gradus dignitatis ordines pro diversitate donorum laborum magnitudine ac vocationum diversitate ac judicat Barbaricum esse de Ecclesia hunc ordinem tollere velle Three things he placeth a superiority of Dignity in Excellency of gifts Greatness of labours difference of calling And the truth is the two former ought to be the measure of dignity in the Church the Eminency of mens abilities and the abundance of their labours above others The necessity of a Superintendent or an Inspector over other Ministers is largely discovered by Zepper de Politeid Ecclesiastica who likewise agrees with the former Divines in his judgement of the first institution of Episcopacy Eadem officia in primitiva etiam Ecclesia post Apostolorum tempora in usu manserunt paucis quibusdam gradibus pro illorum temporum necessitate additis qui tamen nihil fere à mente D. Pauli verbi divini alienum habuerunt Whereby he both assert it to be in the power of the Church to add distinct degrees from what were in the Primitive Church and that such so added are no wayes repugnant to the Word of God According to this judgement of their Divines is the practice of the forraign Protestant Churches In Sweden there is one Arch-Bishop and seven Bishops and so in Denmark though not with so great authority in Holstein Pomeren Mecklenburgh Brunswicke Luneburgh Bremen Oldenburgh East Frieseland Hessen Saxony and all the upper part of Germany and the Protestant Imperial Cities Church government is in the hands of Super-intendents In the Palatinate they had Inspectores and Praepositi over which was the Ecclesiastical Consistory of three Clergy men and three Counsellors of State with their President and so they have their Praepositos in Wetteraw Hessen and Anhalt In Transylvania Polonia and Bohemia they have their Seniores enjoying the same power with anclent Bishops So that we see all these Reformed Churches and Divines although they acknowledge no such thing as a divine Right of Episcopacy but stiffely maintain Ieromes opinion of the primitive equality of Gospel Ministers yet they are so far from accounting it unlawfull to have some Church Officers acting in a higher degree above others that they themselves embrace it under different names and titles in order to the Peace Unity and Government of their several Churches Whereby they give us an evident demonstration that they looked not upon the primitive form to be immutable but that the orders and degrees of Ministers is only a Prudential thing and left in the liberty of every particular Church to be determined according to their tendency to preserve the peace and settlement of a Church We come in the last place to those who hold Episcopacy to be the Primitive Form yet not unalterably binding all Churches and places but that those Churches who are without it are truly constituted Churches and Ministers are lawfully ordained by meer Presbyters This is largely proved by Mr. Francis Mason in his excellent Defence of the Ordination of Ministers beyond the Seas to which I refer the Reader Only I shall shew out of him how the State of the Question about the Ius divinum of Episcopacy is formed First If by jure divino you mean that which is according to Scripture then the preheminence of Bishops is jure divino for it hath been already proved to be according to Scripture Secondly If by jure divino you mean the Ordinance of God in this sense also it may be said to be jure divino For it is an ordinance of the Apostles whereunto they were directed by Gods Spirit even by the Spirit of Prophecy and consequently the ordinance of God But if by jure divino you understand a Law and Commandment of God binding all Christian Churches universally perpetually unchangeably and with such absolute necessity that no other form of Regiment may in any case be admitted in this sense neither may we grant it nor yet can you prove it to be jure divino Whereby we see this learned and moderate man was far from unchurching all who wanted Bishops and absolutely declares that though he look on Episcopacy as an Apostolical Institution yet that no unalterable Divine Right is founded thereupon So before him the both learned and pious Bishop G. Downham explains himself concerning the Right of Episcopacy in these remarkable words Though in respect of the first Institution there is small difference between an Apostolical and Divine Ordinance because what was ordained by the Apostles proceeded from God in which sense and no other I do hold the Episcopal function to be a divine Ordinance I mean in respect of of the first Institution yet in respect of perpetuity difference by some is made between those things which be divini and those which be Apostolici juris the former in their understanding being perpetually generally and immutably necessary the latter not so So that the meaning of my defence plainly iâ— that the Episcopal Government hath this commendation above other forms of Ecclesiastical Government that in respect of the first Institution it is a divine Ordinance but that it should be such a divine Ordinance as should be generally perpetually immutably necessarily observed so as no other form of Government may in no case be admitted I did not take upon me to maintain With more to the same purpose in several places of that defence And from hence it is acknowledged by the stoutest Champions for Episcopacy before these late unhappy divisions that ordination performed by Presbyters in cases
of necessity is valid which I have already shewed doth evidently prove that Episcopal Government is not founded upon any unalterable Divine Right For which purpose many evidences are produced from Dr. Field of the Church lib. 3. c. 39 B. Downam l. 3. c. 4. B. Iewâ—l P. 2. p. 131. Saravia cap. 2. p. 10. 11. B. Alley Praelect 3. 6. B. Pilkinton B. Bridges B. Bilson D. Nowel B. Davenant B. Prideaux B. Andrews and others by our Reverend and learned M. Baxter in his Christian Concord to whom may be added the late most Reverend and eminent the Bishop of Durham Apolog. Cathol p. 1. l. 1. c. 21. and the Primat of Armagh whose judgement is well known as to the point of Ordination So much may suffice to shew that both those who hold an equality among Ministers to be the Apostolical Form and those that do hold Episcopacy to have been it do yet both of them agâ—ee at last in this that no one Form is setled by an unalterable Law of Christ nor consequently founded upon Divine Right For the former notwithstanding their opinion of the primitive Form do hold Episcopacy lawfull and the latter who hold Episcopacy to have been the primitive Form do not hold it perpetually and immutably necessary but that Presbyters where Bishops cannot be had may lawfully discharge the offices belonging to Bishops both which Concessions do necessarily destroy the perpetual Divine Right of that Form of Government they assert Which is the thing I have been so long in proving and I hope made it evident to any unprejudicated mind Having laid down this now as a sure foundation for peace and union it were a very easie matter to improve it in order to an Accommodation of our present differences about Church Government I shall only lay down three general Principles deducible from hence and leave the whole to the mature consideration of the Lovers of Truth and Peace The first Principle is That Prudence must be used in setling the Government of the Church This hath been the whole design of this Treatise to prove that the Form of Church-government is a meer matter of prudence regulated by the Word of God But I need not insist on the Arguments already brought to prove it for as far as I can find although the several parties in their contentions with one another plead for Divine Right yet when any one of them comes to settle their own particular Form they are fain to call in the help of Prudence even in things supposed by the several parties as necessary to the establishment of their own Form The Congregational men may despair of ever finding Elective Synods an explicite Church-Covenant or positive signs of Grace in admission of Church-members in any Law of Christ nay they will not generally plead for any more for them then general rules of Scripture fine Similitudes and Analogies and evidence of natural Reason and what are all these at last to an express Law of Christ without which it was pretended nothing was to be done in the Church of God The Presbyterians seem more generally to own the use of General Rules and the Light of Nature in order to the Form of Church Government as in the subordination of Courts Classical Assemblies and the more moderate sort as to Lay elders The Episcopal men will hardly find any evidence in Scripture or the practice of the Apostles for Churches consisting of many fixed Congregations for worship under the charge of one Person nor in the Primitive Church for the ordination of a Bishop without the preceding election of the Clergy and at least consent and approbation of the people and neither in Scripture nor antiquity the least footstep of a delegation of Church-power So that upon the matter at last all of them make use of those things in Church Government which have no other foundation but the Principles of Humane prudence guided by the Scriptures and it were well if that were observed still The second Principle is That Form of Government is the best according to principles of Christian Prudence which comes the nearest to Apostolical practice and tends most to the advancing the peace and unity of the Church of God What that Form is I presume not to define and determine but leave it to be gather'd from the evidence of Scripture and Antiquity as to the Primitive practice and from the nature state and condition of that Church wherein it is to be setled as to its tendency to the advancement of peace and unity in it In order to the finding out of which that proposal of his late most excellent Majesty of glorious memory is most highly just and reasonable His Majesty thinketh it well worthy the studies and endeavours of Divines of both opinions laying aside emulation and private interests to reduce Episcopacy and Presbyteriâ— into such a well-proportion'd Form of superiority and subordination as may best resemble the Apostolical and Primitive times so far forth as the different condition of the times and the exigences of all considerable circumstances will admit If this Proposal be embraced as there is no reason why it should not then all such things must be retrieved which were unquestionably of the Primitive practice but have been grown out of use through the length and corruption of times Such are the restoring of the Presbyteries of several Churches as the Senate to the Bishop with whole counsel and advice all things were done in the Primitive Church The contracting of Dioceses into such a compass as may be fitted for the personal inspection of the Bishop and care of himself and the Senate the placing of Bishops in all great Towns of resort especially County Towns that according to the ancient course of the Church its Government may be proportioned to the Civil Government The constant preaching of the Bishop in some Churches of his charge and residence in his Diocese The solemnity of Ordinations with the consent of the people The observing Provincial Synods twice every year The employing of none in judging Church matters but the Clergy These are things unquestionably of the Primitive practice and no argument can be drawn from the present state of things why they are not as much if not more necessary then ever And therefore all who appeal to the practice of the Primitive Church must condemn themselves if they justifie the neglect of them But I only touch at these things my design being only to lay a foundation for a happy union Lastly What Form of Government is determined by lawfull authority in the Church of God ought so far to be submitted to as it contains nothing repugnant to the Word of God So that let mens judgements be what they will concerning the Primitive Form seeing it hath been proved that that Form doth not bind unalterably and necessarily it remains that the determining of the Form of Government is a matter of liberty in the Church and what is so
themselves members of it Whereas were the Church and Commonwealth really and formally the same all obligation to Church society would arise meerly from the Legislative Power of the Common wealth But now there being a Divine Law binding in conscience whose obligation cannot bee superseded by any Humane Law it is plain and evident where are such vastly different obligations there are different Powers and in this sense I know no incongruity in admitting imperium in imperio if by it wee understand no external coactive power but an internal power laying obligation on conscience distinct from the power lodged in a Commonwealth considered as such An outward coactive power was alwayes disowned by Christ but certainly not an internal Power over conscience to oblige all his Disciples to what Duties hee thought fit Secondly I argue from those Officers whose rights to govern this Society are founded on that Charter whereby the Society it self subsists Now I would willingly know why when our Saviour disowned all outward power in the World yet hee should constitute a Society and appoint Officers in it did hee not intend a peculiar distinct Society from the other Societies of the world And therefore the argument frequently used against Church-power because it hath no outward force with it by the constitution of Christ is a strong argument to me of the peculiarity of a Christian society from a Commonwealth because Christ so instituted it as not to have it ruled at first by any outward force or power When Christ saith his Kingdome was not of this world he implies that he had a Society that was governed by his Laws in the world yet distinct from all mundane Societies had not our Saviour intended his Church to have been a peculiar Society distinct from a Commonwealth it is hard to conceive why our Saviour should interdict the Apostles the use of a civil coactive power Or why instead of sending abroad Apostles to preach the Gospel hee did not employ the Governours of Commonwealths to have inforced Christianity by Laws and temporal edicts and the several Magistrates to have impowred several persons under them to preach the Gospel in their several Territories And can any thing bee more plain by our Saviours taking a contrary course than that hee intended a Church society to bee distinct from civil and the power belonging to it as well as the Officers to bee of a different nature from that which is settled in a Commonwealth I here suppose that Christ hath by a positive Law established the Government of his Church upon Officers of his own appointment which I have largely prove â—â—sewhere and therefore suppose it now Thirdly I arguâ—â—â—om the peculiar rights belonging to these Societies For if every one born in the Commonwealth have not thereby a right to the priviledges of the Church nor every one by being of the Church any right to the benefits of the Commonwealth it must necessarily follow that these are distinct from one another If any one by being of the Common-wealth hath right to Church-priviledges then every one born in a Common-wealth may challenge a right to the Lords Supper without Baptism or open professing Christianity which I cannot think any will be very ready to grant Now there being by Divine appointment the several rights of Baptism and the Lords Supper as peculiar badges of the Church as a visible Society it is evident Christ did intend it a Society distinct from the Common wealth Fourthly I argue from the different ends of these societies A Common-wealth is constituted for civil ends and the Church for spiritual for ends are to be judged by the primary constitution but now it is plain the end of civil society is for preservation of mens rights as men therefore Magistracy is called by St. Peter 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but this Christian society doth not respect men under the connotation of men but as Christians The answer given to this is very short and insufficient when it is said that every man in a Commonwealth is to act upon spiritual accounts and ends For there is a great deal of difference between Christianities having an influence upon mens actings in a Commonwealth and making a society the same with a Commonwealth To argue therefore from one to another is a shortness of discourse I cannot but wonder at unless it could be proved that Christianity aymed at nothing else but regulating men in the affairs of a Commonwealth which is a task I suppose will not be undertaken Lastly I argue from the peculiar offences against this society which are or â—ay bee distinct from those against a Commonwealth I deny not but most times they are the same but frequently they differ and when they are the same yet the consideration of them is different in the Church and Common wealth for which I shall suppose the six arguments produced in the last chapter of the first part to stand good which will strongly hold to exâ—â—â—â—unication in the Christian Church though there produce 〈…〉 ly for the Iewish I would fain know what is to bee done in many offences known to bee against the Laws of Christ and which tend to the dishonour of the Christian society which the civil and Municipal Laws either do not or may not take cognizance of Thus much may serve as I think to make evident that the Church in its own nature is a peculiar society distinct from a Commonwealth which was the first proposition to bee proved The second is That the power of the Church over it's members in case of offences doth not arise meerly from confederation and consent though it doth suppose it This Church power may be considered two wayes Either first as it implyes the right in some of inflicting censures Or secondly as it implyes in others the duty of submitting to censures inflicted now as to both these I shall prove that their original is higher than meer confederation 1. As to the right of inflicting censures on these accounts First What ever society doth subsist by vertue of a divine constitution doth by vertue thereof derive all power for it's preservation in peace unity and purity but it is plain that a power of censuring offenders is necessary for the Churches preservation in peace and purity and it is already proved that the Church hath its Charter from Christ and therefore from him it hath a power to inflict punishments on Offenders suitable to the Nature of the Society they are of I am very prone to think that the ground of all the mistakes on this subject have risen from hence that some imprudently enough have fixt the original of this Power on some ambiguous places of Scripture which may and it may bee ought to bee taken in a different sense and their adversaries finding those places weak and insufficient proofs of such a power have from thence rejected any such kind of power at all But certainly if wee should reject every truth that is weakly
Holy Ghost hath made them Over-seers 3. I argue that Church-Power ariseth not meerly from consent because the Church may exercise her Power on such who have not actually confederated with her which is in admitting members into the Church For if the Church-Officers have power to judge whether persons are fit to be admitted they have power to exclude from admission such whom they judge unfit and so their power is exercised on those who are not confederated To this it may be answered That the consent to be judged gives the Church power over the person suing for admission I grant it doth as to that particular person but the Right in generall of judging concerning Admission doth argue an antecedent power to an actual confederation For I will suppose that Christ should now appoint some Officers to found a Church and gather a Society of Christians together where there hath been none before I now ask Whether these Officers have power to admit any into the Church or no This I suppose cannot be denied for to what end else were they appointed If it be granted they have power to admit persons and thereby make a Church then they had power antecedently to any confederation for the Confederation was subsequent to their Admission and therefore they who had power to admit could not derive their power from confederation This Argument to me puts the case out of dispute that all Church-power cannot arise from meer confederation And that which further evidenceth that the Power of the Church doth not arise from meer consent is that Deed of Gift whereby our Blessed Saviour did confer the Power of the Keyes on the Apostle Peter as the representative in that action of the whole Colledge of the Apostles and Governours of the Church of which power all the Apostles were actually infeoffed John 20. 23. By which Power of the Keyes is certainly meant some Administration in the Church which doth respect it as a visible Society in which Sense the Church is so frequently called as in that place the Kingdome of Heaven and in all probability the Administration intended here by the Power of the Keyes is that we are now discoursing of viz. the Power of Admission into the Church of Christ in order to the pardon of the sins of all penitent Believers and the shutting out of such who were manifestly unworthy of so holy a communion So that the power of the Keyes doâ—h not primarily respect exclusion out of the Church and receiving into it again upon Absolution but it chiefly respects the power of Admission into the Church though by way of connotation and Analogy of Reason it will carry the other along with it For if the Apostles as Governours of the Church were invested with a power of judging of mens fitness for Admission into the Church as members of it it stands to the highest Reason that they should have thereby likewise a power conveyed to them of excluding such as are unworthy after their Admission to maintain communion with the Church So that this interprâ—tation of the Power of the Keyes is far from invalidating the Power of the Church as to its censuring Offenders all that it pretends to is onely giving a more natural and genuine Sense of the Power of the Keyes which will appear so to be if we consider these things 1. That this Power was given to Saint Peter before any Christian Church was actually formed which as I have elsewhere made manifest was not done till after Christs Resurrection when Christ had given the Aposâ—les their commission to go to Preach and baptize c. Matth. 28. 19. Is it not therefore farr more rational that the Power of the Keyes here given should respect the founding of a Church and admission into it than ejection out of it before it was in being and receiving into it again And this we find likewise remarkably fulfilled in the Person of the Apostle Peter who opened the door of admission into the Christian Church both to Iewes and Gentiles To the Iewes by his Sermon at Pentecost when about 3000. Souls were brought into the Church of Christ. To the Gentiles as is most evident in the story of Corneliuâ— Acts 10. 28. who was the first-fruits of the Gentiles So that if we should yield so far to the great Inhancers of Saint Petesâ— Power that something was intended peculiar to his person in the Keyes given him by our Saviour we hereby see how rationally it may be understood without the least advantage to the extravagant pretensions of Saint Peters pretended Successours 2. The pardon of sin in Scripture is most annexed to Baptism and Admission into the Church and thence it seems evident that the loosing of sin should be by admitting into the Church by Baptism in the same Sense by which Baptism is said to save us and it is called the washing of Regeneration respecting the Spiritual advantages which come by Admission into the Church of Christ and so they are said to have their sins bound upon them who continue refractory in their sins aâ— Simon Magus is said to be in the bond of iniquity 3. The Metaphor of the Keyes refers most to Admission into the House and excluding out of it rather than ejecting any out of it and re-admitting them Thus when Eliakim is said to have the Keyes of the House of David it was in regard of his Power to open and shut upon whom he pleased And thus Cyprian as our learned Mr. Thorndike observes understands the power of binding and loosing in this sense in his Epistle to Iubaianus where speaking of the Remission of sins in Baptism he brings these very words of our Saviour to Peter as the evidence of it That what he should loose on Earth should be loosed in Heaven and concludes with this Sentence Unde intelligimus non nisi in Ecclesiâ praeposit is in Evangeliâ—â lege ac Dominicâ ordinatione fundatis licere baptizare remissam peccatorum dare for is autem nec ligari aliquid posse nec solvi ubi non sit qui ligare possit aut solvere That which I now infer from this Discourse is that the power of the Church doâ—h not arise from meer consent and confederation both because this power doth respect those who have not actually consented to it and because it is settled upon the Governours of the Church by Divine Institution Thus it appears that the right of inflicting censures doth not result meerly â—â—â— confoederatd Disciplind which was the thing to be proved The lâ—ke evidence may be given for the duty of submitting to penalties or Church-censures in the members of the Church which that it ariseth not from meer consent of parties will appear on these accounts 1. Every person who enters this Society is bound to consent before he doth it because of the Obligation lying upon Conscience to an open profâ—ssion of Christianity presently upon conviction of the
understanding of the truth and certainty of Christian Religion For when once the mind of any rational man is so far wrought upon by the influence of the Divine Spirit as to discover the most rational and undoubted evidences which there are of the truth of Christianity he is presently obliged to profess Christ openly to worship him solemnly to assemble with others for instruction and participation of Gospel Ordinances and thence it follows that there is an antecedent Obligation upon Conscience to associate with others and consequently to consent to be governed by the Rulers of the Society which he enters into So that this submission to the power of Church Officers in the exercise of Discipline upon Offenders is implyed in the very conditions of Christianity and the solemn professing and undertaking of it 2. It were impossible any Society should be upheld if it be not laid by the founder of the Society as the necessary Duty of all members to undergo the penalties which shall be inflicted by those who have the care of governing that Society so they be not contrary to the Laws Nature and Constitution of it Else there would be no provision made for preventing divisions and confusions which will happen upon any breach made upon the Laws of the Society Now this Obligation to submission to censures doth speak something antecedentaly to the confederation although the expression of it lies in the confederation its self By this I hope we have made it evident that it is nothing else but a mistake in those otherwise Learned persons who make the power of censures in the Christian Church to be nothing else but a Lex confederata Disciplinae whereas this power hath been made appear to be deâ—ived from a higher Original than the meer Arbitrary consent of the several members of the Church associating together And how farre the examples of the Synagogues under the Law are from reaching that of Christian Churches in reference to this because in these the power is conveyed by the Founder of the Society and not left to any arbitrary constitutions as it was among the Iews in their Synagogues It cannot be denied but consent is supposed and confederation necessary in order to Church power but that is rather in regard of the exercise then the original of it For although I affirm the original of thiâ— power to be of Divine Institution yet in order to the exercise of it in reference to particular persons who are not mentioned in the Charter of the power its self it is necessary that the persons on whom it is exerted should declare their consent and submission either by words or actions to the Rules and Orders of this Society Having now proved that the Power of the Church doth not arise from meer consent of parties the next grand Inquiry is concerning the extent of this power Whether it doth reach so far as to Excommunication For some men who will not seem wholly to deny all power in the Church over Offenders nor that the Church doth subsist by Divine Institution yet do wholly deny any such power as that of Excommunication and seem rather to say that Church-Officers may far more congrâ—ously to their Office inflict any other mulct upon Offenders then exclude them from participation of Communion with others in the Ordinances and Sacraments of the Gospel In order therefore to the clearing of this I come to the third Proposition That the power which Christ hath given to the Officers of his Church doth extend to the exclusion of contumacious Offenders from the priviledges which this Society enjoyes In these terms I rather choose to fix it then in those crude expressions wherein Erastus and some of his followers would state the question and some of their imprudent adversaries have accepted it viz. Whether Church Officers have power to exclude any from the Eucharist ob moralem impuritatem And the reasons why I wave those terms are 1. I must confess my self yet unsatisfied as to any convincing Argument whereby it can be proved that any were denyed admission to the Lords Supper who were admitted to all other parts of Church-Society and owned as members in them I cannot yet see any particular Reason drawn from the Nature of the Lords-Supper above all other parts of Divine worship which should confine the censures of the Church meerly to that Ordinance and so to make the Eucharist bear the same Office in the Body of the Church which our new Anatomists tell us the parenchyme of the Liver doth in the natural Body viz. to be colâ—â—â— sanguinis to serve as a kind of strainer to separate the more gross and faeculent parts of the Blood from the more pure and spirituous so the Lord's Supper to strain out the more impure members of the Church from the more Holy and Spiritual My judgement then is that Excommunication relates immediately to the cutting a person off from Communion with the Churches visible Society constituted upon the ends it is but because Communion iâ— not visibly discerned but in Administration and Participation of Gospel Ordinances therefore Exclusion doth chiefly referre to these and because the Lords Supper is one of the highest privilledges which the Church enjoyes therefore it stands to reason that censures should begin there And in that sense suspension from the Lords Supper of persons apparently unworthy may be embraced as a prudent lawful and convenient abatement of the greater penalty of Excommunication and so to stand on the same general grounds that the other doth for Qui pâ—test majus potest etiam minus which will hold as well in moral as natural power iâ— there be no prohibition to the contrary nor peculiar Reason as to the one more then to the oâ—her 2. I dislike the terms ob moralem impuritatem on this account Because I suppose they were taken up by Erastus and from him by others as the Controversie was managed concerning Excommunication among the Iâ—wes viz. whether it were â—meerly because of Ceremonial or else likewise because of moral impurity As to which I must ingenuously acknowledge Erastus hath very much the advantage of his adversaries clearly proving that no persons under the Law were excluded the Temple Worship because of moral impurity But then withall I think he hath gained little advantage to his cause by the great and successfull pains he hath taken in the proving of that My reason is because the Temple-Worship or the sacrifices under the Law were in some sense propitiatory as they were the adumbrations of that grand Sacrifice which was to be offered up for the appeasing of Gods wrath viz. The Blood of Christ therefore to have excluded any from participation of them had been to exclude them from the visible way of obtaining pardon of sin which was not to be had without shedding of Blood as the Apostle tells us and from testifying their Faith towards God and Repentance from dead works But now under the Gospel those
right of supream management of this power in an external way doth fall into the Magistrates hands Which may consist in these following things 1. A right of prescribing Laws for the due management of Church-censures 2. A right of bounding the manner of proceeding in câ—â—â—â—â—res that in a seâ—â—led Christian-state matters of so great weight bee not left to the arbitrary pleasure of any Church-Officers nor such censures inflicted but upon an evident conviction of such great offences which tend to the dishonour of the Christian-church and that in order to the amendment of the offenders life 3. The right of adding temporal and civil sanctions to Church-censures and so enforcing the spiritual weapons of the Church with the more keen and sharp ones of the Civil State Thus I assert the force and efficacy of all Church censures in foro humano to flow from the Civil power and that there is no proper effect following any of them as to Civil Rights but from the Magistrates sanction 4 To the Magistrate belongs the right of appeals in case of unjust censures not that the Magistrate can repeal a just censure in the Church as to its spiritual effectâ— but he may suspend the temporal effect of it in which case it is the duty of Pastors to discharge their office and acquiesce But this power of the Magistrate in the supream ordering of Ecclesiastical as well as Civil Causes I have fully asserted and cleared already From which it follows That as to any outward effects of the power of excommunication the person of the Supream Magistrate must be exempted both because the force of these censures doth flow from him in a Christian State and that there otherwise would be a progress in infinitum to know whether the censure of the Magistrate were just or no. I conclude then that though the Magistrate hath the main care of ordering things in the Church yet the Magistrates power in the Church being cumulative and not privative the Church and her Officers retain the fundamental right of inflicting censures on offenders Which was the thing to be proved Dedit Deus his quoque Finem Books sold by Henry Mortlocke at the Phoenix in St. Pauls Church-yard near the little North door A Rational Account of the grounds of Protestant Religion being a Vindication of the Lord Arch bishop of Canterbury's Relation of a Conference c. from the pretended Answer by T. C. By Edward Stilling fleet Origines Sacrae or A Rational account of the grounds of Christian Faith as to the Truth and Divine Authority of the Scriptures and the matters therein contained by the same Author in 4o. Bainâ— upon the Ephesians Trapp on the Proverbs Ecclesiastes Canticles with the Major Prophets being his third Volume of Annotations on the whole Bible Greenhill upon Ezekiel Hall upon Anos Brooks on the Necessity Excellency Rarity and Beauty of Holiness Knowledge and Practice or A plain Discourse of the Chief things necessary to be Known Believed and Practised in order to Salvation by Samuel Cradock Scheciâ—ah or A Demonstration of the Divine Presence in Places of Religious Worship By Iohn Stillingfleet A Treatise of Divine Meditation by Iohn Ball published by Mr. Simeon Ash. The Morall Philosophy of the Stoicks turned out of French into English by Charles Cotton Esq An Improvement of the Sea upon the 9 Nauâ—icall Verses of the 107. Psalm Wherein among other things you have A full and delightfull Description of all those many various and multitudinous Objects which are beheld through the Lords Creation both on Sea in Sea and on Land viz. All sorts and kinds of Fish Fowl and Beasts whether Wild or Tâ—me all sorts of Trees and Fruits all sorts of People Cities Towns and Countreys by Daniel Pell Baxters Call c. Hist. Eccl. l. 7. c. 19. § 1. §. 2. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Arist Ethic l. 5. c. 6 Grot. de jure bâ—lli pac lib. 1. cap. 1. Sect. 4. Lâ—ss de justit jure l. 2. c. 2. Dub. 1. Etymol Philol. voc jus Etymol l. 5. cap. 3. Ethic. l. 5. cap. 2. Mat. 15 9. Isa. 29. 11. Tertull. de Orat. cap. 12 v. Herald digress lib. 2. cap. 2. in Tertull. Alex. Alensis part 3. q. 27. m. 3. §. 3. Rom. 4. 8. §. 4. Ethic. l. 5. cap. 10. V. Selden de jure Nat. apud Ebâ—ae lib. 1. c. 7 8. Mol. de just Iur. p. 1 disp 3. Alphons de leg pur l. 2. c. 14. §. 5. Exercit. Eccles. advers Baâ— exer 16. sect 43. Sâ—id de jure Nat. apud Ebr. l. 1. cap. 10. Colloq â—um Tryph. Judâ—o Origin lib. 16. cap. 10. V. Gâ—ot in Luc. 1. 6. Maimon de fundam legis cap. 9. sect 1. Abarb. de Capit. fidei cap. 8. p. 29. Ed. Vorstii Gal. 3. 24. §. 6. Gen. 22. Deut. 5. 15 Act 15. 29. Oraâ— â—â—â—â— Caeâ—iu §. 7. Heb. 6. 1â— Catech. Racov cap. 4. Acts 3. 38. § 8â— Matth. 11. 21. 1 John 2. 6. 1 Peâ— 2â— 22. Gen. 2. 2. Matth. 16. 19. 18. 18. § 1. Hypoth 1. Grot. de jure bellâ— c. lib 1. câ—p 1. s. 10. Prâ—sat in Cod. Canon Eccl. Aâ—ric p. 14. Less de just jure l. 2. c. 19. dâ—b 3. n. 12. Suarez de leg lib. 2 cap. 9. sect 6. Orig. lib. 3. C. Celsum p. 154. ed. Coâ— â— C. Celsum l. 5. p. 147. § 2. Covarr c. 10. de tesiâ—mâ—n 11â— Hobs de civ cap. 1 s. 11. Ann. §. 3. Prop. 3. Paulus l. 1. D. de â—urtis Vâ—pian lib. Post. D. de verb sig V. Grot. de jure belli c. lib. 2. cap. 4 sect 8. §. 4. Judg. 6. 18 1 Sam. 7. 1 4. 16. 9. 10. 3. 2 Sam. 15. 18 c. Exerciâ— in Gen. 42. Isa. 66. 3. Gen. 4 3 4. Heb. 1â— 4. §. 5. Isa. 49. 23. Euseb. vit Constant. l. 4. c. 24. De Imp. sum Potest cap. 2. l. 1. In Iud. c. 19. Panstrat Cath. Tom. 2. l 15. cap. 6. In loc To. 3. Ed. Aeâ—on p. 189. Ed. 1607. De Episcop Const. Magn. § 7. Aristot. Ethic. lib. 6. c. 6. Matth. 28. 18. Heb. 13. 17. V. Peâ—â— Maâ—tyr in 1 Sam. 14. Whitaker â— cont 4. q. 7. Cameron de Eccles. p. 386. To. 1. op Lib. 2. c. Parmen â—a 1 Sam. 8. Loc. Com. Class 4. c. 5â— sect 11. Papin l. 41 D. de poenis Hotâ—oman Com. v. juris v sanct Cicero ad Arâ—ic l. 3. ep 23. §. 8. Institut l. 4. cap. 17. s. 43. cap. 15. s. 19. Nature of Episc. chap. 5. V. Forbes Iren. lib. 1. cap. 13. Rom 14. 23. §. 9. Grat. de jure belli pacis lib. 2. cap 13. sect 7. §. 10. Gal. 5. 1. D. Sanderson de oblig cons. prael 6. s. 5. Gal. 5. 2. Acts 16. 3. Gal. 4. 9 10 11. Coloss. 2. 16 18 19. Rom. 14. 3 6 21. 1 Cor. 10. 24. Controv. 4. quaest 7. cap. 2. In 1 Sam. 14. Aug. eâ— 118. ad Ianuar. §. 11. Gal. 5. 2.