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
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
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
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
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
with that Church in those things will be lawfull too and where non-communion is lawfull there can be no Schism in it Whatever difference will be thought of as to the things imposed by the Church of Rome and others will be soon answered by the proportionable difference between bare non-conformity and totall and positive separation What was in its self lawfull and necessary then how comes it to be unlawfull and unnecessary now Did that justifie our withdrawing from them because they required things unlawfull as conditions of communion and will not the same justifie other mens non-conformity in things supposed by them unlawfull If it be said here that the Popes power was an usurpation which is not in lawfull Governours of Churches it is soon replyed That the Popes usurpation mainly lyes in imposing things upon mens consciences as necessary which are doubtfull or unlawfull and where-ever the same thing is done there is an usurpation of the same nature though not in so high a degree and it may be as lawfull to withdraw communion from one as well as the other If it be said that men are bound to be ruled by their Governours in determining what things are lawfull and what not To this it is answered first no true Protestant can swear blind obedience to Church-Governours in all things It is the highest usurpation to rob men of the liberty of their judgements That which we plead for against the Papists is that all men have eyes in their heads as well as the Pope that every one hath a judicium privata discretionis which is the rule of practice as to himself and though we freely allow a ministeriall power under Christ in the Government of the Church yet that extends not to an obligation upon men to go against the dictates of their own reason and conscience Their power is only directive and declarative and in matters of duty can bind no more then reason and evidence brought from Scripture by them doth A man hath not the power over his own understanding much lâ—sse can others have it Nullus credit aliquid esse verum quia vult credere id esse verum non est enim in potestate hominis facere aliquid apparere intellectui suo verum quando voluerit Either therefore men are bound to obey Church-Governours in all things absolutely without any restriction or limitation which if it be not usurpation and dominion over others faith in them and the worst of implicite faith in others it is hard to define what either of them is or else if they be bound to obey only in lawfull things I then enquire who must be judge what things are lawfull in this case what not if the Governours still then the power will be absolute again for to be sure whatever they command they will say is lawfull either in it self or as they command it if every private person must judge what is lawfull and what not which is commanded as when all is said every man will be his owd judge in this case in things concerning his own welfare then he is no further bound to obey then he judgeth the thing to be lawfull which is commanded The plea of an erroneous conscience takes not off the obligation to follow the dictates of it for as he is bound to lay it down supposing it erroneous so he is bound not to go against it while it is not laid down But then again if men are bound to submit to Governours in the determination of lawfull things what plea could our Reformers have to withdraw themselves from the Popes yoke it might have still held true Boves arabant Asina Pascebantur simul which is Aquinas his argument for the submission of inferiours in the Church to their superiours for did not the Pope plead to be a lawfull Governour and if men are bound to submit to the determination of Church-Governours as to the lawfulnesse of things they were bound to believe him in that as well as other things and so separation from that Church was unlawfull then So that let men turn and wind themselves which way they will by the very same arguments that any will prove separation from the Church of Rome lawfull because she required unlawfull things as conditions of her communion it will be proved lawfull not to conform to any suspected or unlawfull practice required by any Church-Governours upon the same terms if the thing so required be after serious and â—ober inquiry judged unwarrantable by a mans own conscience And withall it would be further considered whether when our best Writers against the Papists do lay the imputation oâ— Schism not on those who withdraw communion but on them for requiring such conditions of communion whereby they did rather eject men out of their communion than the others separate from them they do not by the same arguments lay the imputation of Schism on all who require such conditions of communion and take it wholly off from those who refuse to conform for conscience sake To this I shall subjoyn the judgement of as learned and judicious a Divine as most our Nation hath bred in his excellent though little Tract concerning Schism In those Schisms saith he which concern fact nothing can be a just cause of refusing communion but only to require the execution of some unlawfull or suspected act for not only in reason but in Religion too that Maxim admits of no release Cantissimi cujusque praeceptum Quod dubitas nè feceris And after instanceth in the Schism about Image-worship determin'd by the second Council of Nice in which he pronounceth the Schismatical party to be the Synod its self and that on these grounds First because it is acknowledged by all that it is a thing unnecessary Secondly it is by most suspected Thirdly it is by many held utterly unlawfull Can then saith he the enjoyning of such a thing be ought else but abuse Or can the refusall of communion here be thought any other thing then duty Here or upon the like occasion to separate may peradventure bring personal trouble or danger against which it concerns any honest man to have pectus praeparatum further harm it cannot do so that in these cases you cannot be to seek what to think or what you have to do And afterwards propounds it as a remedy to prevent Schism to have all Liturgies and publike forms of service so framed as that they admit not of particular and private fancies but contain only such things in which all Christians do agree For saith he consider of all the Liturgies that are and ever have been and remove from them whatever is scandalous to any party and leave nothing but what all agree on and the evil shall be that the publike service and honour of God shall no wayes suffer Whereas to load our publike forms with the private fancies upon which we differ is the most soveraign way to perpetuate Schism unto the Worlds end Prayer Confession
Thanksgiving Reading of Scriptures in the plainest and simplest manner were matter enough to furnish out a sufficient Liturgy though nothing either of private Opinion or of Church Pomp of Garments or prescribed Gestures of Imagenary of Musick of matter concerning the dead of many Superfluities which creep into the Church under the name of Order and Decency did interpose it self To charge Churches and Liturgies with things unnecessary was the first beginning of all Superstition and when scruple of conscience began to be made or pretended then Schism began to break in if the special Guides and Fathers of the Church would be a little sparing of incumbring Churches with Superfluities or not over-rigid either in reviving obsolete customes or imposing new there would be far less cause of Schism or Superstition and all the inconvenience were likely to ensue would be but this they should in so doing yield a little to the imbecillity of their inferiours a thing which Saint Paul would never have refused to do mean while wheresoever false or suspected Opinions are made a piece of Church-Liturgy he that separates is not the Schismatick for it is alike unlawful to make profession of known or suspected falshood as to put in practice unlawful or suspected actions Thus far that excellent person whose words I have taken the pains to transcribe because of that great wisdome judgement and moderation contained in them and the seasonableness of his Counsel and Advice to the present posture of affairs among us Were we so happy but to take off things granted unnecessary by all and suspected by many and judged unlawful by some and to make nothing the bonds of our Communion but what Christ hath done viz. one Faith one Baptism c. Allowing a liberty for matters of indifferency and bearing with the weakeness of those who cannot bear things which others account lawfull we might indeed be restored to a true Primitive luster far sooner then by furbishing up some antiquated ceremonies which can derive their pedegree no higher then from some ancient Custome and Tradition God will one day convince men that the Unnion of the Church lies more in the Unity of Faith and Affection then in uniformity of doubtful Rites and Ceremonies The bond of Church-communion should be somthing common to strong and weak Christians as S. Austin saith of the rule of faith that it is pusillis magnisque communis and certainly the Primitive Church that did not charge mens faith with such a load of Articles as now in these latter ages men are charged with would much less burden men with imposing doubtful practices upon them as the ground of Church-communion And for publick forms of Divine Service such of all things certainly should be so composed as to be the least subject to any scruple from any persons whatsoever being on purpose composed for the declaring mens unity and consent in their publick worship and those who are the most addicted to any one form can never plead it unlawful to amend it whereas others may that it is not lawful or convenient at least to use it without such alterations And therefore were there that spirit of mutual condescention which was most certainly in Ecclesiâ primo-primitivâ as Gratian somwhere speaks in the first and truly primitive Church in the Apostles time our breaches as to this thing too might soon be closed up and the voice of Schism be heard among us no more It argued very much the prudence and temper of the French-Churches in composing their publick forms of prayer that they were so far from inserting any thing controversiall into them that Amyraldus tels us the Papists themselves would use them Et quod vix credibile esset nisi publicè viseretur eas inseruerunt in eos libros in quos congesserunt varias precationum formulas And that which men would scarce believe unless they saw it they inserted them into their own Prayer-books The same temper was used by our Reformers in the composing our Liturgy in reference to the Papists to whom they had then an especial eye as being the only party then appearing whom they desired to draw into their communion by coming as near them as they well and safely could And certainly those Holy men who did seek by any means to draw in others at such a distance from their principles as the Papists were did never intend by what they did for that end to exclude any truly tender consciences from their Communion That which they laid as a bait for them was never intended by them as a hook for those of their own profession But the same or greater reason which made them seek so much at that time before the rent between the Papists and us was grown to that height it is now at they being then in hopes by a fair complyance to have brought the whole Kingdom to joyn with them I say the same reason which at that time made them yield so far to them then would now have perswaded them to alter and lay aside those things which yield matter of offence to any of the same profession with themselves now For surely none will be so uncharitable toward those of his own profession as not to think there is as much reason to yield in complyance with them as with the Papists And it cannot but be looked upon as a Token of Gods severe displeasure against us if any though unreasonable Proposals of Peace between us and the Papists should meet with such entertainment among many and yet any fair Offers of Union and Accommodation among our selves be so coldly embraced and entertained Having thus far shewed how far the Obligation to keep in a Church Society doth reach to the several Members of it I now proceed to shew what way the light of nature directs men to for the quieting and composing any differences which may arise in such a Society tending to break the Peace of it But before I come to the particular wayes directed to by the Law of Nature for ending Controversies in the Church I shall lay down some things by way of caution for the right understanding of what is already spoken lest I should be thought instead of pleading for peace to leave a door open for an universal liberty and so pave a new cawse-way towards Babel First That though it be lawful not to conform to unlawful or suspected practises in a Church yet it is not therefore lawful to erect new Churches For all other essentials supposed in a Church a meer requiring conformity in some suspected rites doth not make it to be no true or sound Church as to other things from which it is lawful to make a total divorce and separation A total separation is when a new and distinct society for worship is entered into under distinct and peculiar officers governing by Laws and Church-rules different from that form which they separate from This I do not assert to be therefore lawfull because some things
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
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 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
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
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
intended It is not enough to shew a List of some persons in the great Churches of Ierusalem Antioch Rome and Alexandria although none of these be unquestionable but it should be produced at Philippi Corinth Caesarea and in all the seven Churches of Asia and not onely at Ephesus and so likewise in Creet some succeeding Titus and not think Men will be satisfied with the naming a Bishop of Gortyna so long after him But as I said before in none of the Churches most spoken of is the Succession so clear as is necessary For at Ierusalem it seems somewhat strange how fifteen Bishops of the Circumcision should be crouded into so narrow a room as they are so that many of them could not have above two years time to rule in the Church And it would bear an inquiry where the Seat of the Bishops of Ierusalem was from the time of the Destruction of the City by Titus when the Walls were laid even wih the Ground by Musonius till the time of Adrian for till that time the succession of the Bishops of the Circumcision continued For Antioch it is far from being agreed whether Evodius or Ignatius succeeded Peter or Paul or the one Peter and the other Paul much less at Rome whether Cletus Anacletus or Clemens are to be reckoned first but of these afterwards At Alexandria where the succession runs clearest the Originall of the power is imputedito the choice of Presbyters and to no Divine Institution But at Ephesus the succession of Bishops from Timothy is pleaded with the greatest Confidence and the Testimony brought for it is from Leontius Bishop of Magnesia in the Council of Chalcedon whose words are these 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 From Timothy to this day there hath been a succession of seven and twenty Bishops all of them ordained in Ephesus I shall not insist so much on the incompetency of this single witness to pass a judgement upon a thing of that Nature at the distance of four hundred Years in which time Records being lost and Bishops being after settled there no doubt they would begin their account from Timothy because of his imployment there once for setling the Churches thereabout And to that end we may observe that in the after-times of the Church they never met with any of the Apostles or Evangelists in any place but they presently made them Bishops of that place So Philip is made Bishop of Trallis Ananias Bishop of Damascus Nicolaus Bishop of Samaria Barnabas Bishop of Milan Silas Bishop of Corinth Sylvanus of Thessalonica Crescens of Chalcedon Andreas of Byzantium and upon the same grounds Peter Bishop of Rome No wonder then if Leontius make Timothy Bishop of Ephesus and derive the succession down from him But again this was not an act of the Council its self but onely of one single person delivering his private opinion in it and that which is most observable is that in the thing mainly insisted on by Leontius he was contradicted in the face of the whole Council by Philip a Presbyter of Constantinople For the case of Bâ—ssianus and Stephen about their violent intrusion into the Bishoprick of Ephesus being discussed before the Council A question was propounded by the Council where the Bishop of Ephesus was to be regularly ordained according to the Canons Leontius Bishop of Magnesia saith that there had been twenty seven Bishops of Ephesus from Timothy and all of them ordained in the place His business was not to derive exactly the succession of Bishops but speaking according to vulgar tradition he insists that all had been ordained there Now if he be convicted of the crimen falsi in his 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 no wonder if we meet with a mistake in his 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. e. if he were out in his allegation no wonder if he were deceived in his tradition Now as to the Ordination of the Bishops in Ephesus Philip a Presbyter of Constantinople convicts him of falsehood in that for saith he Iohn Bishop of Constantinople going into Asia deposed fifteen Bishops there and ordained others in their room And Aetius Archdeacon of Constantinople instanceth in Castinus Heraclides Basilius Bishop of Ephesus all ordained by the Bishop of Constantinople If then the certainty of succession relyes upon the credit of this Leontius let them thank the Council of Chalcedon who have sufficiently blasted it by determining the cause against him in the main evidence produced by him So much to shew how far the clearest evidence for succession of Bishops from Apostolical times is from being convincing to any rationall Man Thirdly the succession so much pleaded by the Writers of the Primitive Church was not a succession of Persons in Apostolicall Power but a succession in Apostolical Doctrine Which will be seen by a view of the places produced to that purpose The first is that of Irenaeus Quoniam valdè longum est in hoc tali volumine omnium Ecclesiarum enumerare successiones maximae antiquissimae omnibus cognitae à gloriossimis duobus Apostolis Petro Paulo Romae fundatae constitutae Ecclesiae eam quam habet ab Apostolis traditionem annunciatam hominibus fidem per successiones Episcoporum perveniâ—nâ—es usque ad nos indicantes confundimus omnes eos c. Where we see Irenaeus doth the least of all aim at the making out of a Succession of Apostolical power in the Bishops he speaks of but a conveying of the Doctrine of the Apostles down to them by their hands which Doctrine is here called Tradition not as that word is abused by the Papists to signifie something distinct from the Scriptures but as it signifies the conveyance of the Doctrine of the Scripture it self Which is cleared by the beginning of that Chapter Traditionem itaque Apostolorum in toto mundo manifestatam in Ecclesia adest perspic â—re omnibus qui vera vâ—lint audire habemus annumerare eos qui ab Apostolis instituti sunt Episcopi in Ecclesiis successores eorum usque ad nos qui nihil tale docuerunt nâ—que cognoverunt quale ab his deliratur His plain meaning is that those persons who were appointed by the Apostles to oversee and govern Churches being sufficient witnesses themselves of the Apostles Doctrine have conveyed it down to us by their successours and we cannot learn any such thing of them as Valentinus and his followers broached We see it is the Doctrine still he speaks of and not a word what power and superiority these Bishops had over Presbyters in their several Churches To the same purpose Tertullian in that known speech of his Edant Origines Ecclesiarum suarum evolvant ordinem Episcoporum suorum ita per successiones ab initio decurrentem ut primuâ— ille Episcopus aliquem ex Apostolis aut Apostolicis viris habuerit authorem antecessorem Hoc modo Ecclesiae Apostolicae census suos deferunt sicut Smyrnaeorum Ecclesia habens Polycarpum
380. Isidore succeeded Leander in Sevill 600. The Council sat 619. The Council of Aquen which tanscribes Isidore and owns his Doctrine 816. So that certainly supposing the words of all to be the same yet the Testimony is of greater force as it was owned in several Ages of the Church by whole Councils without any the least controul that we read of And if this then must not be looked on as the Sense of the Church at that time I know not how we can come to understand it if what is positively maintained by different persons in different ages of the Church and in different places without any opposing it by Writers of those ages or condemning it by Councils may not be conceived to be the Sense of the Church at that time So that laying all these things together we may have enough to conclude the Ambiguity at least and thereby incompetency of the Testimony of Antiquity for finding out the certain form which the Apostles observed in planting Churches We proceed to the third thing to shew the incompetency of Antiquity for deciding this Controversie which will be from the Partiality of the Testimony brought from thence Two things will sufficiently manifest the Partiality of the judgment of Antiquity in this Case First their apparent judging of the practice of the first Primitive Church according to the Customes of their own Secondly their stiffe and pertinacious adhering to private traditions contrary to one another and both sides maintaining theirs as Apostolical First judging the practice of the Apostles by that of their own times as is evident by Theodoret and the rest of the Greek Commentators assigning that as the Reason why the Presbyters spoken of in the Epistles to Timothy and Titus were not Bishops in the Sense of their age because there could be but one Bishop in a City whereas there are more expressed in those places as being in the several Cities whereas this is denyed of Apostolical times by the late pleaders for Episcopacy and it is said of them that they spoke according to the custome of their own time And it is now thought there were two Bishops in Apostolical times in several Cities the one the head of the Jewish Coetus and the other of the Gentile I enter not the Dispute again here whether it were so or no onely I hence manifest how farr those persons themselves who plead for the judgement of the Fathers as deciding this Controversie are from thinking them impartial Judges when as to the grounds of their Sentence they are confessed to speak onely of the practice of their own time Who can imagine any force in Chrysostomes argument That the Presbyters who laid hands on Timothy must needs be Bishops because none do Ordain in the Church but Bishops unless he makes this the medium of his argument That whatever was the practice of the Church in his dayes was so in Apostolical times There is I know not what strange influence in a received custome if generally embraced that doth possess men with a â—ancy it was never otherwise then it is with them nay when they imagine the necessity of such a custome at present in the Church they presently think it could never be otherwise then it is But of this I have spoken somewhat already Secondly that which makes it appear how partial the judgement of Antiquity is in adhering to their particular Traditions and calling them Apostolical though contrary to one another How can we then fix upon the Testimony of Antiquity as any thing certain or impartial in this Case when it hath been found so evidently partial in a Case of less concernment then this is A witness that hath once betrayed his faithfulness in the open Court will hardly have his Evidence taken in a Case of moment especially when the Cause must stand or fall according to his single Testimony For my part I see not how any man that would see Reason for what he doth can adhere to the Church for an unquestionable Tradition received from the Apostles when in the case of keeping Easter whether with the Jewes on the fourteenth Moon or only on the Lords day there was so much unreasonable heat shewed on both sides and such confidence that on either side their Tradition was Apostolical The Story of which is related by Eusebius and Socrates and many others They had herein all the advantages imaginable in order to the knowing the certainty of the thing then in question among them As their nearness to Apostolical times being but one remove from them yea the persons contending pleaded personal acquaintance with some of the Apostles themselves as Polycarp with Iohn and Anicetus of Rome that he had his Tradition from Saint Peter and yet so great were the heats so irreconcilable the Controversie that they proceeded to dart the Thunderbolt of excommunication in one anothers faces as Victor with more zeal then piery threw presently the Asiatick Churches all out of Communion onely for differing as to this Tradition The small coals of this fire kindled a whole Aetna of contention in the Christian world the smoak and ashes nay the flames of which by the help of the Prince of the Aire were blown over into the bosome of the then almost Infant Northern Churches of Brittain where a solemn dispute was caused upon this quarrel between Colmannus on one side and Wilfride on the other The like contest was upon this Occasion between Augustine the Monk and the Brittish Bishops The Observation of this strange combustion in the Primitive Church upon the account of so vain frivolous unnecessary a thing as this was drew this note from a Learned and Judicious Man formerly quoted in his Tract of Schism By this we may plainly see the danger of our appeal to Antiquity for resolution in controverted points of Faith O how small relief are we to expect from thence For if the discretion of the chiefest Guides and Directors of the Church did in a point so trivial so inconsiderable so mainly fail them as not to see the Truth in a Subject wherein it is the greater marvel how they could avoid the fight of it Can we without the imputation of great grossness and folly think so poor-spirited persons competent Iudges of the questions now on foot betwixt the Churches Thus that person as able to make the best improvement of the Fathers as any of those who profess themselves the most superstitious admirers of Antiquity But if we must stand to the judgement of the Fathers let us stand to it in this that no Tradition is any further to be imbraced then as it is founded on the Word of GOD. For which purpose those words of Cyprian are very observable In compendio est autem apud religios as simplices mentes errorem deponere invenire atque eruere veritatem Nam si ad Divinae Traditionis caput Originem revertamur cessat error humanus He asserts it an easie
Lay-Elders Again we may consider where Timothy now was viz at Ephesus and therefore if such Lay-Elders anywhere they should be there Let us see then whether any such were here It is earnestly pleaded by all who are for Lay-Elders that the Elders spoken of Acts 20. 17. were the particular Elders of the Church of Ephesus to whom Paul spoke v. 28. where we may find their Office at large described Take heed therefore unto your selves and all the flock over which God hath made you 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Bishops or Overseers Here we see both the names Elders and Bishops confounded again so that he that was an Elder was a Bishop too and the Office of such Elders described to be a Pastoral charge over a flock which is inconsistent with the notion of a Lay-Elder Paul sent indefinitely for the Elders of the Church to come to him If any such then at Ephesus they must come at this summons all the Elders that came were such as were Pastors of Churches therefore there could be no Lay Elders there I insist not on the argument for maintenance implyed in double Honour which Chrysostome explains by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a supply of necessaries to be given to them as appears by ver 18. which argument Blondel saw such strength in that it brought him quite off from Lay-Elders in that place of Timothy And he that will remove the Controversie from the Scriptures to the Primitive Church as we have no reason to think that if such were appointed they should be so soon laid aside will find it the greatest dâ—fficulty to trace the foot-steps of a Lay-Elder through the Records of antiquity for the three first centuries especially The Writers of the Church speak of no Presbyters but such as preached as appears by Origen Cyprian and Clement of Alexandria Origen saith Omnes Episcopi atque omnâ—s Presbyteri vel Diaconi â—rudiunt nos erudientes adhibent correptionem verbis austerioribus increpant We see all Bishops Presbyters and Deacons wâ—re in his time Preachers So Cyprian Et creâ—ideram quidem Presbyteros Diaconos qui illic praesentes sunt monere vos instruere plenissimè circa Evangelii Legem sicut semper ab antecessoribus nostris factum est and in another Epistle about making Numidicus a Presbyter he thus expresseth it ut ascribatur Presbyterorum Carthaginensium numero nobiscum sedeat in Clero where to sit as one of the Clergy and to be a Presbyter are all one Again had there been any such Elders it would have belonged to them to lay hands on those that were reconciled to the Church after Censures now hands were onely laid on ab Episcopo Clero as the same Cyprian tells us Clemens Alexandrinus describing the Office of a Presbyter hath these words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 where Teaching is looked on as his proper work And elsewhere more fully and expresly discoursing of the service of God and distinguishing it according to the twofold service of men 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 he applies these to the Churches 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The former he explains afterwards 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 A Presbyter is one that is ordained or appointed for the instruction of others in order to their amendment implying thereby the Office of a Presbyter to be wholly conversant about teaching others to whom on that account the art of making others better doth properly belong So much may suffice for those first times of the Church that there were no Presbyters then but such as had the Office of Teaching And for the times afterwards of the Church let it suffice at present to produce the Testimony of a Council held in the beginning of the seventh Century who absolutely Decree against all Lay-persons medling in Church-affairs Nova actione didicimus quosdam ex nostro Collegio contra mores Ecclesiasticos laicos habere in rebus Divinis constitutos Oeconomos Proinde pariter tractantes eligimus ut unusquisque nostrûm secundum Chalcedonensium Patrum decreta ex proprio Clero Oeconomum sibi constituat Indecorum est enim Laicum esse vicarium Episcopi saculares in Ecclesia judicare iâ— uno enim eodemque Officiâ— non debet esse dispar professio A Canon directly leveld against all Lay-Chancellours in Bishops Courts and such Officials But doth with the same force take away all Lay-Elders as implying it to be wholly against the rule of the Church to have secular persons to judge in the Church But although I suppose this may be sufficient to manifest the no Divine right of Lay-Elders yet I do not therefore absolutely condemn all use of some persons chosen by the people to be as their representatives for managing their interest in the affairs of the Church For now the voice of the people which was used in the Primitive times is grown out of use such a constitution whereby two or more of the peoples choice might be present at Church debates might be very useful so they be looked on onely as a prudential humane constitution and not as any thing founded on Divine right So much may serve for the first Ground of the probability of the Apostles not observing one setled Form of Church-Government which was from the different state quantity and condition of the Churches by them planted The second was from the multitude of unfixed Officers residing in some places who managed the Affairs of the Church in chief during their Residence Such were the Apostles and Evangelists and all persons almost of note in Scripture They were but very sew and those in probability not the ablest who were left at home to take care of the spoil the strongest and ablest like Commanders in an Army were not setled in any Troop but went up and down from this company to that to order them and draw them forth and while they were they had the chief authority among them but as Commandets of the Army and not as Officers of the Troop Such were Evangelists who were sent sometimes into this Countrey to put the Churches in order there sometimes into another but where ever they were they acted as Evangelists and not as fixed Officers And sâ—câ— were Timothy and Titus notwithstanding all the Opposition made against it as will appear to any that will take an impartial Survey of the arguments on both sides Now where there were in some places Evangelists in others not and in many Churches it may be no other Officers but these it will appear that the Apostles did not observe one constant Form but were with the Evangelists travelling abroad to the Churches and ordering things in them as they saw cause But as to this I have anticipated my self already The last ground was from the different custome observed in the Churches after the Apostles times For no other rational account can be given of the different opinions of Epiphanius Ierome and
Hilary but this that one speakâ— of the Custome of some Churches and the other of others In some as at Alexandria the Presbyters might choose their Bishop in other places it might be as Hilary saith that when the first withdrew another succeeded him Not by a monethly or Annual rotation of Presidents as some have imagined but by a Presidency for life of one upon whose death another succeeded in his room For the former Opinion hath not any Evidence at all for it in Scripture or Antiquity or in the place brought to prove it For according to this Opinion Timothy must have but his course in the rotation of Elders at Ephesus which seems very incongruous to the Office of Timothy I conclude thâ—n that in all probability the Apostles tyed not themselves up to one certain course but in some Churches setled more or fewer Officers as they saw cause and in others governed themselves during life and that at their death they did not determine any form is probably argued from the different customes of several Churches afterwards The third Consideration touching Apostolical practice is concerning the Obligatory force of it in reference to us which I lay down in these terms That a meer Apostolical practice being supposed is not sufficient of its self for the founding an unalterable and perpetual right for that Form of Government in the Church which is supposed to be founded on that practice This is a Proposition I am sure will not be yielded without proving it and therefore I shall endeavour to doe it by a fourfold argument First because many things were done by the Apostles without any intention of obliging any who succeeded them afterwards to do the same As for instance the twelve Apostles going abroad so unprovided as they did when Christ sent them forth at first which would argue no great wisedome or reason in that man that should draw that practice into consequence now Of the like nature was Pauls preaching 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to some Churches receiving no maintenance at all from some Churches as that at Corinth Which instance is a manifest evidence of the monstrous weakness of Discourse in those who would make that example of Paul Obligatory to all Ministers of the Gospel now And while they would by this argument take away their Lands and Tythes instead of them they give them Plaustra convitiorum whole loads of the most reproachful Speeches that ever were given to any but Christ and his Apostles For my part I think the Ministers of the Gospel would want one of the Badges of Honour belonging to their Office were they not thus reproachfully used It is part of the State which belongs to the true Ministers of the Gospel to be followed by such blackmouthed Lacqueyes who by their virulent Speeches are so farre their Friends as to keep them from that Curse which our Saviour pronounceth Wo be unto you when all men speak well of you But let us see how much wooll there is after all this cry too little to cloath the backs of Ministers if such persons might be their Tythe-men but it is well they are so little befriended yea so much opposed by the great Apostle in that singular practice of his For doth he say It was unlawful for him to receive a maintenance from the Churches he preached to Nay doth he not set himself to prove not onely the lawfulness of Ministers taking it but the duty of peoples giving it 1 Cor. 9. from the seventh to the fâ—â—teenth verse giving many pregnant arguments to that purpose Doth he not say that all the Apostles besides him and Barnabas did forbear working and consequenâ—ly had all their necessities supplyed by the Churches Nay doâ—h not Paul himself say that he robbed other Churches taking wages of them to do service to them What Paul turned hireling and in the plainest terms take Wages of Churches Yet so it is and his forbearing it at Corinth was apt to be interpreted as an argument that he did not love them 2 Cor. 11. 11. So far were they from looking upon Paul as a hireling in doing it Paul is strong and earnest in asserting his right he might have done it at Corinth as well as elsewhere But from some prudent considerations of his own mentioned 2 Cor. 11. 12. he forboâ—e the exercise of his right among them although at the same time he received maintenance from other places As for any Divine right of a particular way of maintenance I am of the same Opinion as to that which I am in reference to particular Forms of Church-Government and those that are of another Opinion I would not wish them so much injury as to want their maintenance till they prove it But then I say these things are clear in themselves and I think sufficient grounds for conscience as to the duty of paying on the one side and the lawfulness of receiving it on the other First that a maintenance in general be given to Gospel Ministers is of Divine right else the Labourer were not worthy of his hire nor could that be true which Paul saith that our Lord hath ordained that they which preach the Gospel should live of the Gospel Secondly A maintenance in general being due Lawful authority may determine the particular way of raising it the equity of which way may be best derived from what was the most ancient practâ—ce of the World in dedicating things to God and was approved by God himself among his own people the Jews So that the way of maintenance by Tythes is the most just and equitable way Thirdly It being in the Magistrates power to determine the way of maintenance what is so determined doth bind the Consciences of all subject to that power to an obedience to it for conscience sake In as much as all men are bound thus to obey the Magistrate in all things established by him as Laws and the very same reasons any can plead for disobedience as to this may equally serve for disobedience to any other Lawes made by the Supreme Magistrate This I suppose is the clearest Resolution of that other more vexed then intricate Controversie about the right of Tythes which I have here spoken of by occasion of the mention of the Apostles practice and because it is resolved upon the same principles with the subject I am upon Meer Apostolical practice we see doth not bind because the Apostles did many things without intention of binding others Secondly the Apostles did many things upon particular Occasions Emergencies and circumstances which things so done cannot bind by vertue of their doing them any further then a parity of reason doth conclude the same things to be done in the same circumstances Thus Pauls Coelibate is far from binding the Church it being no universal practice of the Apostles by a Law but onely a thing taken up by him upon some particular grounds not of perpetual and universal concernment So community of
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
Religion and the publick order for the service of God an Assembly of select Divines is call'd by special order from the Kings Majesty for debating of the settlement of things according to the Word of God and the practice of the Primitive Church These sate as Mr. Fox tells us in Windsor Castle where as he expresseth it after long learned wise and deliberate advises they did finally conclude and agree upon one uniform order c. No more is said by him of it and less by the late Historian The proceedings then in order to Reformation being so dark hitherto and obscure by what is as yet extant much light may accrue thereto by the help of some authentick MS. which by a hand of providence have happily come into my hands wherein the manner and method of the Reformation will be more evident to the World and the grounds upon which they proceeded In the Convocation that year sitting with the Parliament I find two Petitions made to the Archbishop and the Bishops of the upper house for the calling an Assembly of select Divines in order to the setling Church-affairs and for the Kings Grant for their acting in Convocation Which not being yet to my knowledge extant in publike and conducing to our present business I shall now publish from the MS. of Bishop Cranmâ—rs They run thus Certain Petitions and requests made by the Clergy of the lower house of the Convocation to the most Reverend Father in God the Arch-Bishop of Canterbury's Grace and the Residue of the Prelates of the higher house for the furtherance of certeyne Articles following First That Ecclesiastical Laws may be made and established in this Realm by xxxij persons or so many as shall please the Kings Majesty to name and appoint according to the effect of a late Statute made in the thirty fifth year of the most noble King and of most Famous memory King Henry the eighth So that all Iudges Ecclesiastical proceeding after those Laws may be without danger and peril Also that according to the antient custome of this Realm and the Tenor of the Kings Writs for the summoning of the Parliament which be now and ever have been directed to the Bishops of every Diocess the Clergy of the lower house of the Convocation may be adjoyned and associate with the lower house of Parliament or else that all such Statutes and Ordinances as shall be made concerning all matters of Religion and Causes Ecclesiastical may not pass without the sight and assent of the said Clergy Also that whereas by the commandment of King Henry 8. certeyne Prelates and other Learned men were appointed to alter the service in the Church and to dewise other convenient and uniform order therein who according to the same appointment did make certeyne books aâ— they be informed their request is that the said books may be seen and perused by them for a better expedition of divine service to bee set furthe accordingly Also that men being called to spiritual promotions or benefices may have sum allowance for their necessary living and other charges to be susteyned and born concerning the said Benefices in the first year wherein they pay the first Fruits The other is Where the Clergy in the present Convocation Assembled have made humble suite unto the most Reverend Father in God my Lord Arch-Bishop of Canterbury and all other Bishops That hit may please them to be a mean to the Kings Majesty and the Lord Protectors Grace that the said Clergy according to the tenor of the Kings will and the auncient Laws and customes of this noble Realme might have their rowme and place and be associated with the Communs in the nether howse of this present Parliament as members of the Communwealth and the Kings most humble subjects and if this may not be permitted and graunted to them that then no Laws concerning the Christiâ—n Religion or which shall concern especially the persons possessions rowmes lyveings jurisdictions goods or cattalls of the said Clergy may passe nor be enacted the said Clergy not being made privy thereunto and their aunswers and reasons not heard The said Clergy dò most humbly beseech an answer and declaration to be made unto them what the said most Reverend Father in God and all other the Bishoppes have done in this their humble suit and request to the end that the said Clergy if nede bee may chose of themself such able and diserete persons which shall effectually follow the same suite in name of them all And where in a Statute ordeyned and established by auctorite of Parliament at Westminster in the twenty fifth year of the reigne of the most excellent Prince King Henry the eighth the Cleregy of this Realme submitting themselfe to the Kings Highness did knowledge and confesse according to the truth that the Convocations of the same Cleregie hath ben and ought to be assembled by the Kings writt And did promise further in verbo sacerdotii that they never from thenceforth wolde presume to attempt allege clayme or put in ure or enact promulge or execute any new Canons constitutions ordinances provincialls or other or by whatsoever other name they shall bee called in the convocation oneles the Kings most royal Assent and Lisence may to them be had to make promulge and execute the same And his Majesty to give his most royall Assent and Auctorite in that behalfe upon peyne of every one of the Cleregie doeyng the contrary and beinge thereof convict to suffre imprisonment and make Fine at the Kings will And that noe Canons constitutions or ordinances shall be made or put in execution within this Realme by auctorite of the convocation of the Cleregie which shall be repugnant to the Kings Prerogative royall or the Customes Laws or Statutes of this Realme Which Statute is eftsoons renewed and established in the xxvij yere of the reigne of the said most noble Kinge as by the tenor of both Statutes more at large will appear the said Cleregie being presently assembled in Convocation by auctorite of the Kings Writ do desire that the Kings Majesties licence in writeing may be for them obteyned and granted according to the effect of the said Statutes auctoriseing them to attempt entreate and commune of such matters and therein freely to geve their consents which otherwise they may not doe upon peyne and perill premised Also the said Cleregie desireth that such matters as concerneth religione which be disputable may be quietly and in good order reasond and disputed emongst them in this howso whereby the verites of such matters shall the better appear And the doubtes being opened and resolutely discussed men may be fully persuaded with the quyetnes of their consciences and the tyme well spent Thus far those Petitions containing some excellent proposalls for a through Reformation Soon after were called together by the Kings special order the former select Assembly at Windsor Castle where met as far as I can guesse by the several papers delivered
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
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
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