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
they were thought by those who were equally enemies to both to be of the same body and community Which consideration will make the thing I aim at seem more probable when withall we observe that the Jewish customs in their Synagogues were those whereby they were most known among the Romans and therefore when they looked on the Christians as of the same Religion with the Jews it is evident they observed no difference as to their publick practises in their religious Societies Which is the first consideration to shew how probable it is that Christians observed the same form in Government with what they found in the Synagogues To which I add a second Consideration which is the Apostles forming Christian Churches out of Jewish Synagogues We have already shewed how much their resort was to them in their preaching from the constant practice of Paul although he was in a more peculiar manner the Apostle of the uncircumcision much more then is it probable that the others especially Peter Iames and Iohn did resort to the Circumcision And in the setling things at first we see how fearful the Apostles were of giving offence to the Jews how ready to condescend to them in any thing they lawfully might And can we think that Paul would yield so far to the Jews as to circumcise Timothy rather then give offence to the Jews in those parts where he was and that in a thing which seemed most immediately to thwart the design of the Gospel as circumcision did witness the Apostle himself that yet he would scruple the retaining the old model of the Synagogue when there was nothing in it at all repugnant to the Doctrine of the Gospel or the nature and constitution of Christian Churches When the Apostles then did not only gather Churches out of Synagogues but at some places in probability whole Synagogues were converted as well as whole Churches formed What shew of reason can be given why the Apostles should flight the constitution of the Jewish Synagogues which had no dependance on the Jewish Hierarchy and subsisted not by any command of the ceremonial Law The work of the Synagogue not belonging to the Priest as such but as persons qualified for instructing others and the first model of the Synagogue government is with a great deal of probability derived from the Schools of the Prophets and the Government thereof This consideration would be further improved if the notion of distinct coetus of the Jewish and Gentile Christians in the same places could be made out by any irrefragable Testimony of Antiquity or clear evidence of reason drawn from Scripture Because the same reason which would ground the distinction of the Jewish Church from the Gentile would likewise hold for the Jewish Church to retain her old form of Government in the Synagogue way For it must be some kind of peculiarity supposed by the Jews in themselves as distinct from the Gentiles which did make them form a distinct Congregation from them which peculiarity did imply the observing those customes among them still by which that peculiarity was known to others among which those of the Synagogue were not the least known or taken notice of But I must freely confesse I find not any thing brought by that learned Person who hath managed this Hypothesis with the greatest dexterity to have that evidence in it which will command assent from an unprejudicated mind And it is pitty that such infirm Hypotheses should be made use of for the justifying our separation from Rome which was built upon reasons of greater strength and evidence then those which have been of late pleaded by some assertors of the Protestant Cause though men of excellent abilities and learning For there are many reasons convictive enough that Peter had no universal power over the Church supposing that there was no such thing as a distinction between the Jewish and Gentile Coetus I deny not but at first before the Jews were fully satisfied of the Gentiles right to Gospel priviledges they were very shy of communicating with them especially the believing Jews of the Church of Ierusalem Upon the occasion of some of whom coming down to Antioch from Iames it was that Peter withdrew and separated himself from the Gentiles with whom before he familiarly conversed Which action of his is so far from being an argument of the setling any distinct Church of the Jews from the Gentiles there that it yields many reasons against it For first Peters withdrawing was only occasional and not out of design whereas had it been part of his commission to do it we cannot conceive Peter so mindlesse of his Office as to let it alone till some Jews came down from Ierusalem to tell him of it Secondly It was not for the sake of the Jews at Antioch that he withdrew but for the Jews which came down from Ierusalem whereas had he intended a distinct Church of the Jews he would before have setled and fixed them as members of another body but now it evidently appears that not only Peter himself but the Jews with him did before those Jews coming to Antioch associate with the Gentiles which is evident by v. 13. And other Iews dissembled likewise with him in so much that Barnabas also was carryed away with their dissimulation Whereby it is clear that these Jews did before joyn with the Gentile-Christians or else they could not be said to be led away with the dissimulation of Peter Thirdly St. Paul is so far from looking upon this withdrawing of Peter and the Iews from the Gentiles society to be a part of St. Peters Office that he openly and sharply reproves him for it What then was Paul so ignorant that there must be two distinct Churches of Iews and Gentiles there that he calls this action of his dissimulation In all reason then supposing this Notion to be true the blame lights on Paul and not on Peter as not understanding that the Jews were to be formed into distinct bodies from the Gentile-Christians And therefore it is observable that the same Author who is produced as asserting that seorsim quae ex Iudais erant Ecclesiae habebantur nec his quae â—rant ex Gentibus miscebantur is he who makes this reprooâ— of Peter by Paul to be a meer matter of dissimulation between them both which sense of that action whoever will be so favourable to it as to embrace it as some seem inclinable to do it will never be able to answer the arguments brought by St. Augustine against it This place then was unhappily light upon to ground a distinction of the several Coeius or distinct Churches of Jews and Christians at Antioch But it may be more evidence for it may be seen in the Rescript of the Council of Ierusalem which is directed 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 To the Brethren of Antioch those of the Gentiles But. lest some hidden mysteries should lye in this curtailing the words
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
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
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
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
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