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
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-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-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-non-communion
Magistrate the third 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 when the punishment is inflicted upon one that others should take notice of it which must be alwayes done in a publike manner So 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in Matthew is opposed to 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 These things being thus in general considered come we now to apply it to the Church considered as a Society That it hath peculiar Laws to be governed by appears by the distinct nature end and design of the constitution of it which is not to preserve any outward Rights but to maintain and keep up a religious Society for the service of God and therefore the penall sanctions of these Laws cannot properly be any corporall or pecuniary mulct but somewhat answerable to the nature of the Society It must be then somewhat which implyes the deprivation of that which is the chiefest benefit of that Society The benefits of it are the priviledges and honour which men enjoy by thus associating themselves for so high an employment That punishment then must be the loss of those priviledges which the Corporation enjoyes which must be by exclusion of the offending person from communion with the Society Hence we see it is evident that which we call Excommunication is the greatest penalty which the Church as a Society can inflict upon the members of it considered as such And hence it is likewise clear that as the Society of the Church is distinct from others the Laws ends Governours of a different nature so the punishment must be a punishment distinct from civill and ordained wholly in order to the peculiar ends of this Society which they do not well consider who deny any such power as that of Excommunication peculiar to the Church which is as much as to deny that the Laws whereby the Church is ruled are different from the civil Laws or the end of this Society from the ends of civil Societies for the punishment must be proportioned to the Laws and referred immediately to its proper ends It were no wayes difficult to answer the pretences brought against this For although I acknowledge a subordination of this religious Society to the Supream Authority in the Commonwealth and that the Rules concerning the Government of the Society in common must have their sanction from thence yet this no wayes implyes but it may have its peculiar penalties and power to inflict them any more then any Company of Tradesmen have not power to exclude any from their Company for breaking the Rules of the Company because they are subordinate to the Supream Authority or any Colledge to expell any from thence for breaking the locall Statutes of it which are distinct from the Common-Laws Nor is it any argument that because Christians had mutuall confederations in times of persecution for the exercise of censures therefore these censures were only arbitrary and humane unless it be proved that it was not a duty in them so to confederate joyn together nor was there any antecedent obligation to inflict those censures upon offenders Much lesse thirdly because their jurisdiction is not civil and coactive therefore they have none at all which is as much as to say the Laws of Scripture are not our common-Laws therefore they are none at all I shall not here insist upon the divine Right of power to excommunicate offenders founded upon the positive Laws of Chist it being my only businesse now to shew what foundation such a power hath in the Law of Nature which we have seen doth follow upon the Churches being a distinct Society ruled by other Laws acting on other ends subsisting upon different grounds from any other Society A further evidence we have of this how consonant it is to the light of Nature from the practice of all Societies pretending to be for the Worship of God who have looked upon this as the proper penalty of offenders among them to be excluded out of those Societies Thus we find among the Druids whose great office was to take care of the worship of their gods and to instruct the people in Religion as Caesar relates Illi rebus divinis intersunt sacrificia publica ac privata procurant religiones interpretantur and accordingly the punishment of disobedience among them was excommunication from their sacrifices which they looked upon as the greatest punishment could be inflicted upon them as Caesar at large describes it Si quis aut privatus aut pubicus eorum decreto non stetit sacrificiis interdicunt haec poena apud eos est gravissima quibus ita est interdictum ii numero impiorū sceleratorum habentur iis omnes decedunt aditū eorū sermonemque defugiunt nè quid ex contagione incommodi accipiant neque iis petentibus jus redditur neque honos ullus communicatur The practice of Excommunication among the Jews is not questioned by any but the right ground and orignall of that practice with the effect and extent of it Some conceive it to have been only taken up among the Jews after the power of capitall punishments was taken from them and that it was used by them wholly upon a civill account not extending to the exclusion of men from their worship in the Temple or Synagogues but only to be a note of insamy upon offending persons This opinion though entertained by persons of much skill and learning in the Jewish antiquities yet carries not that evidence with it to gain my assent to it For first the causes of excommunication were not such as were expressed by their Law to deserve such civil punishments as might have been inflicted by them upon offenders nor were they generally matters of a civill nature but matters of offence and scandall as will appear to any that shall peruse the twenty four causes of Excommunication related out of the Jewish Writers by Selden and Ioh. Coch. Such were the neglecting the Precepts of the Scribes the vain pronouncing the Name of God bearing witness against a Iew before Heathen tribunals doing any common work in the afternoon of the day before the Passover with others of a like Nature If Excommunication had been then taken up among them onely ex confoederatâ disciplinâ to supply the defect of civil Judicatories at least all Capitall offenders must have lain under the Sentence of Excommunication But here we read not of any being Excommunicated for those but for other lesser matters which were looked upon as matters of scandal among them and though some of them were matters of civil injuries yet it follows not that men were Excommunicated for them as such but for the scandall which attended them As in the Christian Church men are Excommunicated for matters which are punishable by the civil Magistrate but not under that notion but as they are offences to that Christian Society which they live among Secondly It appears that Excommunication was not a meer civil Penalty because the increasing or abatement of that Penalty did depend upon the
and did bestow his entertainment upon them all as considered together but by reason of the great multitude of them it was impossible that they should all be feasted together in the same Room and therefore for more convenient participation of the Kings bounty it was necessary to divide themselves into particular companies and to associate as many as conveniently could in order to that end So it is in the Church Christ in donation of priviledges equally respects the whole Church but because men cannot all meet together to participate of these priviledges a more particular distribution was necessary for that end But a clearer example of this kind we have yet in Scripture which is Mark 6. 39. in our Saviours feeding the multitude with five loaves and two fishes where we see our Saviours primary intention was to feed the whole multitude but for their more convenient partaking of this food our Saviour commands them to sit down 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 according to the Hebraism of ingeminating the words to note the distribution of them and therefore the Vulg. Lat. renders it secundum contubernia that is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as Camerarius expounds it according to so many companies and divisions as might conveniently sit together as at a Table Where we plainly see this distribution was only accidentall as to Christs primary intention of feeding the multitude but was only necessary for their own conveniency Thus the case is evident as to the Church of God it is our necessity and conveniency which makes severall Congregations of the Catholike visible Church and not Gods primary intention when he bestowed such priviledges upon the Church that it should be understood of particular Congregations If then particular Congregations be only accidentall for our conveniency it evidently follows that the primary notion of a Church doth not belong to these nor that these are the first subject of Government which belongs to a Church as such and not as crumbled into particular Congregations although the actual exercise of Government be most visible and discernable there Because the joyning together for participation of Gospel-Ordinances must be in some particular company or other associated together for that end Where ever then we find the notion of a Church particular there must be government in that Church and why a National Society incorporated into one civil Government joyning in the profession of Christianity and having a right thereby to participate of Gospel-Ordinances in the convenient distributions of them in particular congregations should not be called a Church I confesse I can see no reason The main thing objected against it is that a Church implyes an actual joyning together for participation of all Gospel-Ordinances but as this as I said before is only a begging the Question so I say now that actual communion with any particular Congregation is not absolutely necessary to a member of a Church for supposing one baptized at Sea where no setled Congregation is nor any more Society then that which Aristotle calls 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 yet such a one is thereby a member of the Church of God though not of any Congregation so likewise a Church then may consist of such as have a right to Ordinances without the inserting their actual participation of them in fixed Congregations A particular Church then I would describe thus That it is A society of men joyning together in the visible profession of the true Faith having a right to and enjoying among them the Ordinances of the Gospel That a whole Nation professing Christianity in which the Ordinances of the Gospel are duly administred in particular Congregations is such a Society is plain and evident A clear instance of such a National constitution of a Church under the Gospel we have in the Prophesie of the Conversion of Egypt and Assyria in Gospel-times Isaiah 19. 19 21 24 25. We have Egypts professing the true Faith and enjoying Gospel Ordinances vers 19. 21. which according to the Prophetical stile are set down under the representation of such things as were then in use among the Jewes by an Altar in the midst of the Land ver 19. The Altar noting the true worship of God and being in the midst of the Land the universal owning of this worship by all the people of the land God owns them for a Church v. 25. Whom the Lord of hosts shall bless saying Blessed be Egypt my people The very name whereby Israel was called while it was a Church 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Hosea 2. 1. And when God unchurched them it was under this name 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Ye are not my people As much then as Israel was a Church when God owned it for his People so should Egypt be upon their conversion to the Faith of Christ which was done upon Marks preaching at Alexandria not long after the death of Christ. This then we have now briefly cleared that a Nation joyning in profession of Christianity is a true Church of God whence it evidently follows that there must be a Form of Ecclesiastical Government over a Nation as a Church as well as of Civil Government over it as a Society governed by the same Lawes Therefore some make this necessary to a Nationall Church National Union in one Ecclesiasticall body in the same Community of Ecclesiasticall Government For every Society must have its Government belonging to it as such a Society and the same Reason that makes Government necessary in any particular Congregation will make it necessary for all the particular Congregations joyning together in one visible society as a particular National Church For the unity and peace of that Church ought much more to be looked after then of any one particular Congregation in as much as the Peace of all the particular combinations of men for participation of Ordinances doth depend upon and is comprehended in the Peace of the whole But though I say from hence that some form of publike Government by the subordination of particular Assemblies to the Government of the whole body of them is necessary yet I am far from asserting the necessity of any one form of that Government much more from saying that no Nationall Church can subsist without one Nationall Officer as the High-Priest under the Law or one Nationall place of Worship as the Temple was The want of considering of which viz that Nationall Churches may subsist without that Form of them under the Jewes is doubtless the great Ground of Mens quarrelling against them but with what Reason let Men impartially judge This then we agree that some from of Government is necessary in every particular Church and so that Government in the Church of Divine and unalterable Right and that not onely of particular Congregations but of all Societies which may be called Churches whether Provinciall or Nationall CHAP. II. The second Concession is That Church-government formally considered must be administred by Officers of Divine appointment To that end
Holy Ghost hath made them Over-seers 3. I argue that Church-Power ariseth not meerly from consent because the Church may exercise her Power on such who have not actually confederated with her which is in admitting members into the Church For if the Church-Officers have power to judge whether persons are fit to be admitted they have power to exclude from admission such whom they judge unfit and so their power is exercised on those who are not confederated To this it may be answered That the consent to be judged gives the Church power over the person suing for admission I grant it doth as to that particular person but the Right in generall of judging concerning Admission doth argue an antecedent power to an actual confederation For I will suppose that Christ should now appoint some Officers to found a Church and gather a Society of Christians together where there hath been none before I now ask Whether these Officers have power to admit any into the Church or no This I suppose cannot be denied for to what end else were they appointed If it be granted they have power to admit persons and thereby make a Church then they had power antecedently to any confederation for the Confederation was subsequent to their Admission and therefore they who had power to admit could not derive their power from confederation This Argument to me puts the case out of dispute that all Church-power cannot arise from meer confederation And that which further evidenceth that the Power of the Church doth not arise from meer consent is that Deed of Gift whereby our Blessed Saviour did confer the Power of the Keyes on the Apostle Peter as the representative in that action of the whole Colledge of the Apostles and Governours of the Church of which power all the Apostles were actually infeoffed John 20. 23. By which Power of the Keyes is certainly meant some Administration in the Church which doth respect it as a visible Society in which Sense the Church is so frequently called as in that place the Kingdome of Heaven and in all probability the Administration intended here by the Power of the Keyes is that we are now discoursing of viz. the Power of Admission into the Church of Christ in order to the pardon of the sins of all penitent Believers and the shutting out of such who were manifestly unworthy of so holy a communion So that the power of the Keyes doâ—h not primarily respect exclusion out of the Church and receiving into it again upon Absolution but it chiefly respects the power of Admission into the Church though by way of connotation and Analogy of Reason it will carry the other along with it For if the Apostles as Governours of the Church were invested with a power of judging of mens fitness for Admission into the Church as members of it it stands to the highest Reason that they should have thereby likewise a power conveyed to them of excluding such as are unworthy after their Admission to maintain communion with the Church So that this interprâ—tation of the Power of the Keyes is far from invalidating the Power of the Church as to its censuring Offenders all that it pretends to is onely giving a more natural and genuine Sense of the Power of the Keyes which will appear so to be if we consider these things 1. That this Power was given to Saint Peter before any Christian Church was actually formed which as I have elsewhere made manifest was not done till after Christs Resurrection when Christ had given the Aposâ—les their commission to go to Preach and baptize c. Matth. 28. 19. Is it not therefore farr more rational that the Power of the Keyes here given should respect the founding of a Church and admission into it than ejection out of it before it was in being and receiving into it again And this we find likewise remarkably fulfilled in the Person of the Apostle Peter who opened the door of admission into the Christian Church both to Iewes and Gentiles To the Iewes by his Sermon at Pentecost when about 3000. Souls were brought into the Church of Christ. To the Gentiles as is most evident in the story of Corneliuâ— Acts 10. 28. who was the first-fruits of the Gentiles So that if we should yield so far to the great Inhancers of Saint Petesâ— Power that something was intended peculiar to his person in the Keyes given him by our Saviour we hereby see how rationally it may be understood without the least advantage to the extravagant pretensions of Saint Peters pretended Successours 2. The pardon of sin in Scripture is most annexed to Baptism and Admission into the Church and thence it seems evident that the loosing of sin should be by admitting into the Church by Baptism in the same Sense by which Baptism is said to save us and it is called the washing of Regeneration respecting the Spiritual advantages which come by Admission into the Church of Christ and so they are said to have their sins bound upon them who continue refractory in their sins aâ— Simon Magus is said to be in the bond of iniquity 3. The Metaphor of the Keyes refers most to Admission into the House and excluding out of it rather than ejecting any out of it and re-admitting them Thus when Eliakim is said to have the Keyes of the House of David it was in regard of his Power to open and shut upon whom he pleased And thus Cyprian as our learned Mr. Thorndike observes understands the power of binding and loosing in this sense in his Epistle to Iubaianus where speaking of the Remission of sins in Baptism he brings these very words of our Saviour to Peter as the evidence of it That what he should loose on Earth should be loosed in Heaven and concludes with this Sentence Unde intelligimus non nisi in Ecclesiâ praeposit is in Evangeliâ—â lege ac Dominicâ ordinatione fundatis licere baptizare remissam peccatorum dare for is autem nec ligari aliquid posse nec solvi ubi non sit qui ligare possit aut solvere That which I now infer from this Discourse is that the power of the Church doâ—h not arise from meer consent and confederation both because this power doth respect those who have not actually consented to it and because it is settled upon the Governours of the Church by Divine Institution Thus it appears that the right of inflicting censures doth not result meerly â—â—â— confoederatd Disciplind which was the thing to be proved The lâ—ke evidence may be given for the duty of submitting to penalties or Church-censures in the members of the Church which that it ariseth not from meer consent of parties will appear on these accounts 1. Every person who enters this Society is bound to consent before he doth it because of the Obligation lying upon Conscience to an open profâ—ssion of Christianity presently upon conviction of the
understanding of the truth and certainty of Christian Religion For when once the mind of any rational man is so far wrought upon by the influence of the Divine Spirit as to discover the most rational and undoubted evidences which there are of the truth of Christianity he is presently obliged to profess Christ openly to worship him solemnly to assemble with others for instruction and participation of Gospel Ordinances and thence it follows that there is an antecedent Obligation upon Conscience to associate with others and consequently to consent to be governed by the Rulers of the Society which he enters into So that this submission to the power of Church Officers in the exercise of Discipline upon Offenders is implyed in the very conditions of Christianity and the solemn professing and undertaking of it 2. It were impossible any Society should be upheld if it be not laid by the founder of the Society as the necessary Duty of all members to undergo the penalties which shall be inflicted by those who have the care of governing that Society so they be not contrary to the Laws Nature and Constitution of it Else there would be no provision made for preventing divisions and confusions which will happen upon any breach made upon the Laws of the Society Now this Obligation to submission to censures doth speak something antecedentaly to the confederation although the expression of it lies in the confederation its self By this I hope we have made it evident that it is nothing else but a mistake in those otherwise Learned persons who make the power of censures in the Christian Church to be nothing else but a Lex confederata Disciplinae whereas this power hath been made appear to be deâ—ived from a higher Original than the meer Arbitrary consent of the several members of the Church associating together And how farre the examples of the Synagogues under the Law are from reaching that of Christian Churches in reference to this because in these the power is conveyed by the Founder of the Society and not left to any arbitrary constitutions as it was among the Iews in their Synagogues It cannot be denied but consent is supposed and confederation necessary in order to Church power but that is rather in regard of the exercise then the original of it For although I affirm the original of thiâ— power to be of Divine Institution yet in order to the exercise of it in reference to particular persons who are not mentioned in the Charter of the power its self it is necessary that the persons on whom it is exerted should declare their consent and submission either by words or actions to the Rules and Orders of this Society Having now proved that the Power of the Church doth not arise from meer consent of parties the next grand Inquiry is concerning the extent of this power Whether it doth reach so far as to Excommunication For some men who will not seem wholly to deny all power in the Church over Offenders nor that the Church doth subsist by Divine Institution yet do wholly deny any such power as that of Excommunication and seem rather to say that Church-Officers may far more congrâ—ously to their Office inflict any other mulct upon Offenders then exclude them from participation of Communion with others in the Ordinances and Sacraments of the Gospel In order therefore to the clearing of this I come to the third Proposition That the power which Christ hath given to the Officers of his Church doth extend to the exclusion of contumacious Offenders from the priviledges which this Society enjoyes In these terms I rather choose to fix it then in those crude expressions wherein Erastus and some of his followers would state the question and some of their imprudent adversaries have accepted it viz. Whether Church Officers have power to exclude any from the Eucharist ob moralem impuritatem And the reasons why I wave those terms are 1. I must confess my self yet unsatisfied as to any convincing Argument whereby it can be proved that any were denyed admission to the Lords Supper who were admitted to all other parts of Church-Society and owned as members in them I cannot yet see any particular Reason drawn from the Nature of the Lords-Supper above all other parts of Divine worship which should confine the censures of the Church meerly to that Ordinance and so to make the Eucharist bear the same Office in the Body of the Church which our new Anatomists tell us the parenchyme of the Liver doth in the natural Body viz. to be colâ—â—â— sanguinis to serve as a kind of strainer to separate the more gross and faeculent parts of the Blood from the more pure and spirituous so the Lord's Supper to strain out the more impure members of the Church from the more Holy and Spiritual My judgement then is that Excommunication relates immediately to the cutting a person off from Communion with the Churches visible Society constituted upon the ends it is but because Communion iâ— not visibly discerned but in Administration and Participation of Gospel Ordinances therefore Exclusion doth chiefly referre to these and because the Lords Supper is one of the highest privilledges which the Church enjoyes therefore it stands to reason that censures should begin there And in that sense suspension from the Lords Supper of persons apparently unworthy may be embraced as a prudent lawful and convenient abatement of the greater penalty of Excommunication and so to stand on the same general grounds that the other doth for Qui pâ—test majus potest etiam minus which will hold as well in moral as natural power iâ— there be no prohibition to the contrary nor peculiar Reason as to the one more then to the oâ—her 2. I dislike the terms ob moralem impuritatem on this account Because I suppose they were taken up by Erastus and from him by others as the Controversie was managed concerning Excommunication among the Iâ—wes viz. whether it were â—meerly because of Ceremonial or else likewise because of moral impurity As to which I must ingenuously acknowledge Erastus hath very much the advantage of his adversaries clearly proving that no persons under the Law were excluded the Temple Worship because of moral impurity But then withall I think he hath gained little advantage to his cause by the great and successfull pains he hath taken in the proving of that My reason is because the Temple-Worship or the sacrifices under the Law were in some sense propitiatory as they were the adumbrations of that grand Sacrifice which was to be offered up for the appeasing of Gods wrath viz. The Blood of Christ therefore to have excluded any from participation of them had been to exclude them from the visible way of obtaining pardon of sin which was not to be had without shedding of Blood as the Apostle tells us and from testifying their Faith towards God and Repentance from dead works But now under the Gospel those
sufficient for Communion with a Church which are sufficient for eternal salvation And certainly those things are sufficient for that which are laid down as the necessary duties of Christianity by our Lord and Saviour in his Word What ground can there be why Christians should not stand upon the same terms now which they did in the time of Christ and his Apostles Was not Religion sufficiently guarded and fenced in them Was there ever more true and cordial Reverence in the Worship of God What Charter hath Christ given the Church to bind men up to more then himself hath done or to exclude those from her Society who may be admitted into Heaven Will Christ ever thank men at the great day for keeping such out from Communion with his Church whom he will vouchsafe not onely Crowns of Glory to but it may be aureolae too if there be any such things there The grand Commission the Apostles were sent out with was onely to teach what Christ had commanded them Not the least intimation of any Power given them to impose or require any thing beyond what himself had spoken to them or they were directed to by the immediate guidance of the Spirit of God It is not Whether the things commanded and required be lawfull or no It is not Whether indifferencies may be determined or no It is not How far Christians are bound to submit to a restraint of their Christian liberty which I now inquire after of those things in the Treatise its self but Whether they do consult for the Churches peace and unity who suspend it upon such things How far either the example of our Saviour or his Apostles doth warrant such rigorous impositions We never read the Apostles making Lawes but of things supposed necessary When the Councel of Apostles met at Ierusalem for deciding a Case that disturbed the Churches peace we see they would lay no other burden 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 besides these necessary things Acts 15. 29. It was not enough with them that the things would be necessary when they had required them but they looked on an antecedent necessity either absolute or for the present state which was the onely ground of their imposing those commands upon the Gentile-Christians There were after this great diversities of practice and varieties of Observations among Christians but the Holy Ghost never thought those things fit to be made matters of Lawes to which all parties should conform All that the Apostles required as to these was mutuall forbearance and condescension towards each other in them The Apostles valued not indifferencies at all and those things it is evident they accounted such which whether men did them or not was not of concernment to Salvation And what reason is there why men should be so strictly tied up to such things which they may do or let alone and yet be very good Christians still Without all Controversie the main in-let of all the Distractions Confusions and Divisions of the Christian World hath been by adding other conditions of church-Church-Communion then Christ hath done Had the Church of Rome never taken upon her to add to the Rule of Faith nor imposed Idolatrous and superstitious practises all the injury she had done her self had been to have avoyded that fearful Schisme which she hath caused throughout the Christian World Would there ever be the less peace and unity in a Church if a diversity were allowed as to practices supposed indifferent yea there would be so much more as there was a mutual forbearance and condiscension as to such things The Unity of the Church is an Unity of love and affection and not a bare uniformity of practice or opinion This latter is extreamly desireable in a Church but as long as there are several ranks and sizes of men in it very hardly attainable because of the different perswasions of mens minds as to the lawfulness of the things required and it is no commendation for a Christian to have only the civility of Procrustes to commensurate all other men to the bed of his own humour and opinion There is nothing the Primitive Church deserves greater imitation by us in then in that admirable temper moderation and condescension which was used in it towards all the members of it It was never thought worth the while to make any standing Laws for Rites and Customs that had no other Original but Tradition much less to suspend men her his communion for not observing them 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as Sozomen tells us They judged it and that very justly a foolish and frivolous thing for those that agree in the weighty matters of Religion to separate from one anothers communion for the sake of some petty Customs and Observations 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 For Churches agreeing in the same Faith often differ in their Rites and Customes And that not only in different Churches but in different places belonging to the same Church for as he tells us many Cities and Villages in Egypt not onely differed from the Customes of the Mother-Church of Alexandria but from all other Churches besides in their publick Assemblies on the Evenings of the Sabbath and receiving the Eucharist after dinner This admirable temper in the Primitive Church might be largely cleared from that liberty they allowed freely to dissenters from them in matters of practice and opinion as might be cleared from Cyprian Austine Ierome and others but that would exceed the bounds of a Preface The first who brake this Order in the Church were the Arrians Donatists and Circumcellians while the true Church was still known by his pristine Moderation and sweetness of deportment towards all its members The same we hope may remain as the most infallible evidence of the conformity of our Church of England to the Primitive not so much in using the same rites that were in use then as in not imposing them but leaving men to be won by the observing the true decency and order of Churches whereby those who act upon a true Principle of Christian ingenuity may be sooner drawn to a complyance in all lawfull things then by force and rigorous impositions which make men suspect the weight of the thing it self when such force is used to make it enter In the mean time what cause have we to rejoyce that Almighty God hath been pleased to restore us a Prince of that excellent Prudence and Moderation who hath so lately given assurance to the World of his great indulgence towards all that have any pretence from Conscience to differ with their Brethren The onely thing then seeming to retard our peace is the Controversie about Church-Government an unhappy Controversie to us in England if ever there were any in the World And the more unhappy in that our contentions about it have been so great and yet so few of the multitudes engaged in it that have truly understood the matter they have so eagerly contended about For the state of the controversie as it concerns
second is that the persons imployed in the Service of God should have respect answerable to their imployment which appears from their Relation to God as his Servants from the persons imployed in this work before positive Laws Masters of Families the first Priests The Priesthood of the first-born before the Law discussed The Arguments for it answered The Conjunction of Civil and Sacred Authothority largely shewed among Egyptians Grecians Romans and others The ground of Separation of them afterwards from Plutarch and others p. 85 CHAP. V. THE third thing dictated by the Law of Nature is the solemnity of all things to be performed in this Society which lyes in the gravity of all Rites and Ceremonies in the composed temper of mind Gods Worship rational His Spirit destroyes not the use of Reason The Enthusiastick spirit discovered The circumstantiating of fit times and place for Worship The seventh day on what account so much spoken of by Heathens The Romans Holy dayes Cessation of labour upon them The solemnity of Ceremonies used 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 silence in devotions Exclusion of unfit persons Solemnity of Discipline Excommunication among the Iewes by the sound of a Trumpet among Christians by a Bell. p. 93 CHAP. VI. THE fourth thing dictated by the Law of Nature that there must be a way to end controversies arising which tend to break the peace of the Society The nature of Schisme considered The Churches Power as to Opinions explained When separation from a Church may be lawful Not till communion becomes sin Which is when corruptions are required as conditions of Communion Not lawful to erect new Churches upon supposition of corruption in a Church The ratio of a fundamental article explained it implyes both necessity and sufficiency in order to salvation Liberty of judgement and authority distinguished The latter must be parted with in religious Societies as to private persons What way the Light of nature directs to for ending Controversies First in an equality of power that the less number yield to the greater on what Law of Nature that is founded Secondly In a subordination of power that there must be a liberty of Appeals Appeals defined Independency of particular Congregations considered Elective Synods The Case paralleld between Civill and Church-Government Where Appeals finally lodge The power of calling Synods and confirming their Acts in the Magistrate p. 104. CHAP. VII THE fifth thing dictated by the Law of Nature That all that are admitted into this Society must consent to be governed by the Lawes and Rules of it Civil Societies founded upon mutual Consent express in their first entrance implicite in others born under Societies actually formed Consent as to a Church necessary the manner of Consent determined by Christ by Baptism and Profession Implicite consent supposed in all Baptized explicite declared by challenging the Priviledges and observing the Duties of the Covenant Explicite by express owning the Gospel when adult very useful for recovering the credit of Christia nity The Discipline of the primitive Church cleared from Origen Iustin Martyr Pliny Tertullian The necessary reâ—â—â—â—â—â—es of Church membership whether Positive signs of Grace nothing required by the Gospel beyand reality of profession Exâ—â—â—â—â—tâ— Coâ—â—â—â—â—â— how far necessary not the formal Constitution of a Church proved by severâ—â— arguments p. 132. CHAP. VIII THE last thing dictated by the Law of Nature is that every offender against the Lawes of this Society is bound to give an account of his actions to the Governours of it and submit to the censures inflicted upon him by them The original of penalties in Societies The nature of them according to the nature and ends of Societies The penalty of the Church no civil mulct because its Lawes and ends are different from civil Societies The practice of the Dâ—uâ—ds and Câ—rceâ—ae in e 〈…〉 n. Among the Iewes whether a meer civil or sacr 〈…〉 y. The latter proved by six Arguments Cherem Col Bo what Objections answered The original of the mistake shewed The first part concluded p. 141 PART II. CHAP. I. THE other ground of divine Right considered viz. Gods positive Lawes which imply a certain knowledge of Gods intention to bind men perpetuaâ—ly As to which the arguments drawn from Tradition and the practice of the Church in after ages proved invalid by several arguments In order to a right stating the Question some Concessions laid down First That there must be some form of Government in the Church is of divine right The notion of a Church explained whether it belongs only to particular Congregations which are manifested not to be of Gods primary intention but for our necessity Evidence for National Churches under the Gospel A National Church-Government necessary p. 150 CHAP. II. THE second Concession is That Church Government must be administred by officers of Divine appointment To that end the continuance of a Gospel Ministry fully cleared from all those arguments by which positive Laws are proved immutable The reason of its appointment continues the dream of a â—aeculum Spiritus sancti discussed first broached by the Mendicant Friers upon the rising of the Waldenses now embraced by Enthusiasts It s occasion and unreasonableness shewed Gods declaring the perpetuity of a Gospel Ministry Matth. 28. 20. explained A Novel interpretation largely refuted The world to come What A Ministry necessary for the Churches continuance Ephes. 4 12. explained and vindicated p. 158 CHAP. III. THE Question fully stated Not what Form of Government comes the nearest to the Primitive practice but whether any be absolutely determined Several things propounded for resolving the Question What the Form of Church-Government was under the Law How far Christians are bound to observe that Neither the necessity of a superiour Order of Church-Officers nor the unlawfulness can be proved from thence p. 170 CHAP. IV. WHether Christ hath determined the Form of Government by any positive Laws Arguments of the necessity why Christ must determine it largely answered as First Christs faithfulness compared with Moses answered and retorted and thence proved that Christ did not institute any Form of Government in the Church because he gave no such Law for it as Moses did And we have nothing but general Rules which are appliable to several Forms of Government The Office of Timothy and Titus What it proves in order to this question the lawfulness of Episcopacy shewed thence but not the necessity A particular form how far necessary as Christ was Governour of his Church the Similitudes the Church is set out by prove not the thing in question Nor the difference between civil and Church-Government nor Christ setting Officers in his Church nor the inconvenience of the Churches power in appointing new Officers Every Minister hath a power respecting the Church in common which the Church may determine and fix the bounds of Episcopacy thence proved lawful The argument from the Scriptures perfection answered p. 175 CHAP. V. WHether any of Christs actions have determined the Form of
though it were lawful not to do them before that Command The truth of the Proposition appears because Lawful Authority may command any thing that may be lawfully done Because nothing can exempt from obedience to a lawful Magistrate but the unlawfulness of the thing commanded and therefore nothing can debar the Magistrate from commanding these things for nothing can hinder him from Commanding but what may hinder the Subject from Obedience I grant in many cases it may be lawful to obey when it is very inconvenient for the Magistrate to command but inconveniency and unlawfulness are two things nay and in some cases a man may lawfully obey when he is unlawfully commanded but then the matter of the Command it self is unlawful As in executing an unjust Sentence granting that a Princes Servants may lawfully do it especially when they know it not yet in that case the ground of their lawful obedience is the ground of the Magistrates lawful Command which is the supposed Justice of the Execution But that which makes the Magistrates Command unlawful is the intrinsecal evil of the thing its self So for unlawful Wars though the Subjects may lawfully obey yet the Prince sins in commanding not but that he hath right to command so far as they are bound to obey which is only in things lawful but that which in this case alters the matter is the Princes knowing his cause to be unjust So that however the Proposition holds in things not manifestly unjust But however this be it is hereby granted that the things may be lawfully done when they are restrained by the Magistrates Command and by that it appears that liberty may be restrained else it could not be lawful to act under that restraint not as it respects the things themselves but under that formality as they are the restraint of that which ought to be left free The Restraint however then is lawful as to the persons acting under Authority who are the Subjects of this liberty though it were granted unlawfull as to the authority doing it Which former is sufficient for my purpose viz. that Christian liberty as to the subjects of it may be lawfully restrained Secondly A lesser duty ceaseth to be a duty when it hinders from the performance of greater but the preserving Christian liberty is a lesser duty which may hinder the peace of the Church which is a greater therefore in that case it may be restrained The Major is granted by Divines and Casuists when duties stand in competition the lesser ceaseth to bind as is evident in that God will have mercy rather then sacrifice Positives yield to morals and naturals Thence the obligation of an Oath ceaseth when it hinders from a natural duty as the Corban among the Jews from relief of Parents And therefore Grotius saith that an Oath taken concerning a thing lawfull if it doth hinder majus bonum morale the obligation of that Oath ceaseth Now that preserving-liberty is a lesser duty then the looking after the peace of the Church is evident because the one is only a matter of liberty and left undetermin'd by the Word and the other a matter of necessity and absolutely and expresly required of all as a duty as much as possibly lyes in them to endeavour after Thirdly If an occasional offence of weaker Brethren may be a ground for restraining Christian liberty then much more may commands from lawfull authority do it but the offence of weaker Brethren may restrain Christian liberty as to the exercise of it as appears by the Apostles discourse Rom. 14. 21. The reason of the consequence lies here that a case of meer offence which is here pleaded towards weak Brethren cannot have that obligation upon Conscience which a known duty of obeying lawfull Authority in things in themselves lawfull hath Nay further insisting only on the Law of scandall I would fain know whether it be a greater offence and scandall to Christians consciences to infringe the lawfull authority of the Magistrate and to deny obedience to his commands in things undetermin'd by the Law of God or else to offend the Consciences that is go against the judgements of some well-meaning but less-knowing Christians Or thus whether in the matter of scandall it be a greater offence to go against the judgements of the weaker and more ignorant or the more knowing and able when the one have only their own weak apprehension to byasse them the other are backed by and grounded upon an established Law And whether it be not a greater scandall to Religion to disobey a Christian Magistrate then it is to offend some private Christians Let these things be examined and then let us see whether the argument will not hold à majori if the Law of scandall as to private Christians may restrain liberty then may a command from the Magistrate do it Fourthly I argue thus If the nature of Christian-liberty may be preserved under the restraint of the exercise of it then it is not against the nature of Christian-liberty to have the exercise restrained but the former is true and therefore the latter Now that the nature of Christian-liberty may be preserved under the restraint of its exercise I prove by these arguments First Because the nature of Christian-liberty is founded upon the freedom of judgement and not the freedom of practice The case is the same in moral and natural liberty as in Christian. Now we say truly that the radical liberty of the soul is preserved though it be determined to a particular action For the liberty of the Will lying in the power of determining its self either way as it is generally thought the actuall determination of the Will doth not take away the internal power in the soul and in that respect there may be a potentia faciendi where there is not possibilit as effectûs a power of doing when there is no possibility the thing should be done when the event is otherwise determined by a divine decree as in breaking the bones of Christ upon the Crosse. So it is in reference to Christian liberty though the exercise of it be restrained yet the liberty remains because Christian-liberty lyes in the freedom of judgement that is in judging those things to be free which are so so that if any thing that is in its self free be done by a man with an opinion of the necessity of doing it antecedent to the Law commanding it or without any Law prescribing it thereby his Christian liberty is destroyed but if it be done with an opinion of the freedom and indifferency of the thing it self but only with a consequential necessity of doing it supposing the Magistrates command he retains the power of his Christian-liberty still though under the restraint of the exercise of it And therefore it would be well observed that the opinion of the necessity of any one thing undetermined by Scripture destroys Christian-liberty more then a Magistrates command doth And by this
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as Socrates tells us Those that agree in the same Faith may differ among themselves in their Rites and Customs as he largely shews in a whole Chapter to that purpose as in the observation of Easter some on the fourteenth day of April others only upon the Lords Day but some of the more Eastern Churches differed from both In their Fasts some observed Lent but for one day some two some three weeks some six weeks other seven and in their Fasts some abstained from all kind of living creatures others only from fresh eating fish and others â—oul others abstained from fruit and eggs others eat only dry bread others not that neither And so for their publick Assemblies Some communicating every Lords day others not The Church of Alexandria had its publick Meetings and Sermons every fourth day of the week as he tells us The same Church made the publick Readers and Interpreters either of the Catechumeni or of the baptized differing therein from all other Churches Several Customes were used about Digamy and the Marriage of Ministers in several Churches So about the time of Baptism some having only one set time in the year for it as at Easter in Tâ—hâ—ssaly others two Easter and Dominica in Albis so call'd from the white garments of the baptized Some Churches in Baptism used three dippings others only one Great differences about the time of their being Catechumeni in some places longer in others a shorter time So about the Excommunicate and degrees of penance as they are call'd their Flentes audientes succumbentes consistentes the Communio peregrinae the several Chrismes in vertice in pectore in some places at Baptism in some after So for placing the Altar as they Metaphorically called the Communion Table it was not constantly towards the East for Socrates affirms that in the great Church at Antiochia it stood to the West end of the Church and therefore it had 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a different positure from other Churches And Eusebius saith out of the Panegyrist that in the New Church built by Paulinus at Tyre the Altar stood 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the middle These things may suffice for a taste at present of which more largely elsewhere God willing in due time We see the Primitive Christians did not make so much of any Uniformity in Rites and Ceremonies nay I scarce think any Churches in the Primitive times can be produced that did exactly in all things observe the same customes Which might especially be an argument of moderation in all as to these things but especially in pretended Admirers of the Primitive Church I conclude with a known saying of Austin Indignum est ut propter ea quae nos Deo neque digniores neque indigniores possunt facere alii alios vel condemnemus vel judicemus It is an unworthy thing for Christians to condemn and judge one another for those things which do not further us at all in our way to Heaven Lastly That Religion be not clogg'd with Ceremonies They when multiplied too much if lawful yet strangely eat out the heart heat life vigour of Christianity Christian Religion is a plain simple easie thing Christ commends his Yoke to us by the easiness of it and his burden by the lightness of it It was an excellent testimony which Amm. Marcellinus a Heathen gave to Christianity when speaking of Constantius Religionem Christianam rem absolutam simplicem aâ—â—li superstitione confudit That he spoiled the beauty of Christianity by musting it up in Superstitious observations And it is as true which Erasmus said in answer to the Sorbonists Quò magis in corporalibus ceremoniis haeremus hoc magis vergimus ad Iudaismum External Ceremonies teach us backward and bring us back from Christ to Moses which is fully proved as to the Papists by our Learned Rainolds and Mr. De Croy But we need no further Evidence then a bare perusal of Durandus Mimatensis his Rationale Divinorum officiorum By Ceremonies I mean not here matters of meer decency and order for order sake which doubtless are lawful if the measure of that order be not the pomp and glory of the world but the gravity composure sobriety which becomes Christianity for when the Jews were the most strictly tyed up by a Ceremonial Law they did introduce many things upon the account of order and decency ás the building Synagogues their hours of Prayer their Parashoth and Haphtaroth the Sections of the Law and Prophets the continuation of the Passover fourteen days by Hezekiah when the Law required but seven the Feast of Purim by Esther and Mordecai the Fasts of the 4. 5. 10 moneth under the Captivity the Feast of Dedication by the Maccabees The use of Baptism in Proselyting washing the feet before the Passeover imitated and practised by our Saviour So that matters of Order and Decency are allowable and fitting but Ceremonies properly taken for actions significative and therefore appointed because significative their lawfulness may with better ground be scrupled Or taking Ceremony in Bellarmines description of it to be actio externa quae non aliunde est bona laudabilis nisi quia fit ad Deum colendum And in this sense it will be hard to manifest any thing to be lawful but what is founded upon a Divine Precept if it be not a matter of Order and so no Ceremony And as for significative Ceremonies concerning matter of Doctrine or Fact a learned Dr. puts us in mind of the old Rule that they be paucae salubres and the fewer the more wholesome for as he observes from Aristotle in Insectâ—le Animals the want of blood was the cause they run out into so many legs I shall conclude this whole Discourse with another Speech of S. Austin very pertinenâ— to our present purpose Omnia itaque talia quae neque sanctarum Scripturarum autoritatibus continentur nec in Conâ—iliis Episcoporum statuta inveniuntur nec consuetudine universae Ecclesiae roborata sunt sed diversorum locorum diversis moribus innumerabiliter variantur ita ut vix aut omnino nunquam inveniri possint causae quas in eis instituendis secuti sunt homines ubi facultas tribuitur sine ulla dubitatione resecanda existimo All such things which are neither founded on the authority of the Scriptures nor determined by General Councils for so he must be understood nor practised by the Catholick Church but vary according to the customes of places of which no rational account can be given â—ssoon as men have power to do it I judge them to be cut off without any scruple For which definitive sentence of his he gives this most sufficient Reason Quamvis enim neque hoc inveniri possit quomodo contra fidem sint ipsam tamen religionem quam paucissimis manifestissimis celebrationem sacramentis misericordia Dei liberam esse voluit servilibus oneribus premunt ut tolerabilior
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-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-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
are required which mens consciences are unsatisfied in unless others proceed to eject and cast them wholly out of communion on that account in which case their separation is necessary and their Schism unavoidable Secondly therefore I assert that as to things in the judgement of the Primitive and Reformed Churches left undetermined by the Law of God and in matters of meer order and decency and wholly as to the form of Government every one notwithstanding what his private judgement may be of them is bound for the Peace of the Church of God to submit to the determination of the lawful Governours of the Church And this is that power of ending Controversies which I suppose to be lodged in a Church-Society not such a one as whereto every man is bound to conform his private judgement but whereto every private person is bound to submit in Order to the Churches Peace That is that in any Controversies arising in a Church there is such a power supposed that may give such an authoritative Decision of the controversie in which both parties are bound to acquiesce so as to act nothing contrary to that Decision For as it is supposed that in all Contracts and Agreements for mutuall Society men are content to part with their own Liberties for the good of the whole so likewise to part with the Authority of their own judgements and to submit to the Determination of things by the Rulers of the Society constituted by them For there must be a difference made between the Liberty and freedom of a mans own judgment and the Authority of it for supposing men out of all Society every man hath both but Societies being entred and Contracts made though men can never part with the freedom of their Judgements Men not having a Depotical power over their own understandings yet they must part with the Authority of their Judgements i. e. in matters concerning the Government of the Society they must be ruled by Persons in Authority over them Else there can be nothing imagined but confusion and disorder in stead of Peace and Unity in every civil State and Society The case is the same in a religious Society too in which men must be supposed to part with the Authority of their own judgements in matters concerning the Government of the Church and to submit to what is constituted and appointed by those who are intrusted with the care and welfare of it Else it is impossible there should be Unity and Peace in a Church considered as a Society which is as much as to say there neither is nor can be such a Society And that God hath commanded that which is Naturally impossible I mean freedom from divisions and the Unity and Peace of his Church Which will appear from hence because it can never be expected that all men should be exactly of one mind Either then men retaining their private apprehensions are bound to acquiesce in what is publikely determined or there is a necessity of perpetuall confusions in the Church of God For the main inlet of all disturbances and divisions in the Church is from hence that Men consider themselves absolutely and not as Members of a governed Society and so that they may follow their own own private judgements and are bound so to doe in matters belonging to the Government of the Church and not to acquiesce for the Churches Peace in what is established in Order to the ruling of this so constituted Society by lawfull Authority These things premised the way is now fully cleared for the discovering what wayes are prescribed by the light of Nature for ending controversies in the Church which will appear to be these two 1. In societies wherein persons act with an equality of Power for the ending differences arising the less number must alwayes acquiesce in the determination of the greater And therefore it iâ— a generally received Axiom that in all Societies pars major â—ut habet universitatis the greater part hath the power of the whole And it is a standing Rule in the Civil Law Refertur ad universos quod publice fit per majorem partem which is determined by the Lawyers to hold not of the persons in power but of the persons present at the Determination as when Alexander Severus made fourteen of the Viri Consulares to be Curatores urbis joyned with the Praefectis urbis to Determine cases brought before them what was determined by the greater part of those present was looked upon as binding as if the whole number had been there And this Aristotle layes down as one of the fundamental Lawes of a Democratical Government 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 That must be looked on as a just and final decision of a Case debated which the major part determines And therefore rationally infers that in a Democracy the poorer sort and so likewise the worse must alwayes bear the greatest sway because they are the most Which is an unavoydable inconvenience in that form of Government whether in Church or State The same he elsewhere applyes to other forms of Government which have a multitude of Rulers as Aristocracy and Oligarchy That which seems good to the most obtains as a Law amongst all Which Appian thus briefly expresseth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and Dionys. Halicarnasseus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the one speaking of matter of Fact that it doth obtain the other of matter of Law that it should do so It appears then from the Law and light of nature that where ever any multitude acts in an equality of Power the greater part have the power of the whole not from any right which the major part hath as superiour over the less but from the Law of nature which will have every part ordered for the good of the whole which good cannot oft times be obtained without a special determination on one side or other nor that determination have its effect if the Act of the major part may be rescinded by the less So that in every thing requiring special determination this is to be esteemed the most just and final decision which is done by the major part For it would be manifestly unjust for the lesser part to determine the greater and therefore by the Law of nature the greater part hath the right of the whole 2. In a society consisting of many particular Companies or Congregations there must be a subordination of Powers by the Law of nature which grants a right of Appeal to an injured person from the lower and subordinate Power to the higher and superiour Appealing is defined by the Lawyers to be Provocatio iniquae sententiae querelam contineus An address to a higher Power with complaint of wrong and so in geneall it is defined by Ulpian to be ab Inferioris Iudicis sententiâ ad superiorem provocatio but as Hottoman observes appeals may sometimes be made to a co-ordinate power upon complaint of injustice done As one
there is not the least evidence or foundation in Reason or Scripture for it For the LXX did not derive their power from the Apostles but immediately from Christ they enjoyed the same priviledges were sent upon the same message making way for Christs entertainment in the several Cities they went to yea all things were parallel between them and the Apostles in their mission unlesse any difference be made in the Cities they went to and their number So that there is no superiority of office in the Apostles above the LXX nor of power and jurisdiction over them their Commissions being the same And it seems most probable that both their missions were only temporary and after this the LXX remained in the nature of private Disciples till they were sent abroad by a new Commission after the Resurrection for preaching the Gospel and planting Churches For we see that the Apostles themselves were only Probationers till Christ solemnly authorized them for their Apostolical employment Matth. 28. 18. Iohn 20. 21. when their full Commissions were granted to them and then indeed they acted with a plenitude of power as Governours of the Church but not before Nothing can be inferred then for any necessary standing Rule for Church-government from any comparison between the Apostles and the LXX during the life of Christ because both their missiors were temporary and occasional Only we see that because Christ did keep up the number of the twelve so strictly that as the LXX were a distinct number from them so when one was dead another was to be chosen in his stead which had been needlesse if they had not been a distinct Order and Colledge by themselves it is thence evident that the Apostolical power was a superiour power to any in the Church and that such an inequality in Church-Officers as was between them and particular Pastors of Churches is not contrary to what our Saviour saith when he forbids that dominion and authority in his Disciples which was exercised by the Kings of the earth Matthew 20. 25. Luke 22. 25. which places because they are brought by some to take away all inequality among Church-Officers I shall so far examine the meaning of them as they are conceived to have any influence thereupon First then I say that it is not only the abuse of civil power which our Saviour forbids his Disciples but the exercise of any such power as that is And therefore the Papists are mistaken when from the words of Luke Vos autem non sic they conclude All power is not forbidden but only such a tyrannical power as is there spoken of For those words are not a limitation and modification of the power spoken of but a total prohibition of it for first the comparison is not between the Apostles and Tyrants but between them and Princes yea such as Luke câ—lls 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Indeed had Christ said The Kings of the earth abuse their authority vos autem non sic then it would have been onely a limitation of the exercise of power but the meer exercise of civil authority being spoken of before and then it being subjoyned but you not so it plainly implyes a forbidding of the power spoken of in the persons spoken to But say they the words used in Matthew are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which import the abuse of their power which is forbidden But I answer first in Luke it is otherwise for there it is the simple 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 when it follows 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 So that if the abuse be forbidden in one the use is in the other but secondly 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by the LXX is used frequently for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is often rendred by that word as Psalm 72. 7. He shall have dominion 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Psalm 110. 2. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Rule thou in the midst of thine enemies in both which places it is spoken of christs Kingdom So in Genesis 1. 28. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Replenish the earth and have dominion over it In all which places it is used simply for Dominion and not for Tyrannical Power It is not then the abuse of civil Power but the use of it which is here forbidden which will be more evident secondly from the importance of the phrase 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which answers to the Hebrew 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and simply denyes what went before as when Cain expresseth his fear of being kill'd Genesis 4. 14. The Septuagint render Gods answer by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 whereby is not denyed only the manner of his death to be as Abels was but it is simply denyed and so Psalm 1. 4. the LXX render 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the wicked are not so So when Christ saith Matthew 19. 8. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 from the beginning it was not so it imports an absolute denyal of giving bills of divorce from the beginning Thirdly This no wayes answers to the scope of the Apostles contention which was meerly about Primacy and Power and not at all about the abuse of this Power So that by this place all affectation and use of a civil co active external power is forbidden to the Officers of the Church the power of the Church being only a directive voluntary power and is rather a Ministry then a Power as our Saviour expresseth there Matthew 20. 26. Luke 22. 26. But having thus excluded all Civil Power from the Governours of the Church as such I say secondly That this place doth no wayes imply a prohibition of all inequality among the Governours of the Church which is abundantly cleared by this reason because by the acknowledgement of all parties the Apostles had a Superiour power over the ordinary Pastors of Churches Now if the exercise of all Superiority had been forbidden this must have been forbidden too as implying plainly an exercise of authority in some over others in the Church And therefore Musculus thus explains the place Non exigit hoc Christus ut omnes in regno suo sint aequales sed nè quispiam cupiat magnus primus haberi videri It is not an inequality of Order but ambition which Christ forbids and therefore he observes that Christ saith not Let none be great among you and none first which should have been if all Primacy and Superiority had been forbidden and a necessity of an equality among Church-Officers but he that will be great among you let him be your Minister Let those that are above others look upon themselves as the servants of others and not as their masters For God never bestows any power on any for the sake of those that have it but for the sake of those for whom they are employed When men seek then their own greatnesse and not the service of the Church they flatly contradict this
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Acts 3. 24. which a Learned Interpreter â—enders the portion of his Apostolacy or the Province which fell to Iudas his lot in the distribution of them among the Apostles which saith he is call'd 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 into which Matthias did 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 go and from which Judas fell by his sin This Exposition is very often suggested by that learned Author but with all due reverence to his name and memory I cannot see any such evidence either from Scripture or reason to enforce any such Exposition of either phrase yielding us sufficient ground to for sake the received sense of both of them For 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is plainly nothing else but that office of the Apostleship which belonged to Iudas without any relation to a Province and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is that proper place which belonged to Iudas as he is call'd 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Son of perdition and no other But the very foundation of this mistake is that the several Provinces into which the Apostles were to go for preaching the Gospel were distributed among them before they were filled with the Holy Ghost which is an Hypothesis will not easily be granted by any one that doth but impartially consider these things That if the Provinces were so distributed among them it must be either before the death of Christ or after and it must be before if Iudas had a peculiar Province assigned to him which this Exposition necessarily implyes but how Provinces could be divided among them before they had their Commission given them to preach to all Nations is somewhat hard to understand It must be then immediately after Christ had bid them preach to every creature that they thus distributed the Provinces among them but several things make this very improbable First The grosse mistake of the Apostles concerning the very nature of Christs Kingdom which we read Acts 1. 6 when they jointly ask Christ Lord wilt thou at this time restore the Kingdom to Israel They dreamâ— still of a temporal Kingdom according to the common opinion of the Jews and Is it probable they should distribute among themselves the several Provinces for Preaching the Gospel who thought that Christs Kingdom would have been established by other means then going up and down the World They looked that Christ himself should do it by his own power Wilt thou at this time c. and did not think it must be done by their means much lesse by their single going into such vast parts of the World as the twelve divisions of the World would be Secondly It appears very improbable any such division of Provinces should be made then when they were commanded to stay at Ierùsalem and not to stir thence till the promise of the Spirit was fulfilled upon them Tarry ye in the City of Jerusalem till ye be endued with power from on high Luke 24. 49. And being assembled together with them be commanded them not to depart from Jerusalem but wait for the promise of the Father Acts 1. 4. Is it likely when the Apostles were thus straightly charged not to leave Ierusalem till they were endued with the power of the Holy Ghost they should contrive the dispersing themselves abroad all over the World especially when Christ told them that it should be after the coming of the Spirit that they should go abroad Acts 1. 8. and that the Spirit should fit them for their work Iohn 15. 26 27. Iohn 16. 13. by teaching them and testifying of Christ. Thirdly If such a distribution of Provinces had been made so early among the Apostles how comes it to passe that after they were endued with the Holy Ghost they did not every one betake himself to his several Province there could have been then no plea nor excuse made for their stay any longer at Ierusalem after the promise of the Spirit was fulfilled upon them And yet after the persecution raised at Ierusalem when most of the Church were dispersed abroad we find the Apostles remaining still at Ierusalem Acts 8. 1 14. Would they have been so long absent from their charge if any such distribution had been made among themselves Fourthly The Apostles occasional going to places as they did argues there was no such set division of Provinces among them The first departure of any of the Apostles from Ierusalem was that of Peter and Iohn who were sent by common order of the Apostles to Samaria after they heard that by Philips preaching they had received the Word of God Not the least mention of any peculiar Province of theirs which they were sent to So Peters going from Ioppa to Casarea was occasioned by Cornelius his sending for him Fifthly That Provinces were not divided appears because of so frequent reading of many of the Apostles being together in one place first the whole twelve at Ierusalem after that Peter and Iohn together at Samaria about four years after Pauls conversion we met with Iames and Peter together at Ierusalem fourteen years after this we find Iames Peter and Iohn there Is it any wayes probable if all these had their distinct Provinces assigned then they should be so often found together at Ierusalem which certainly must belong but to the Province of one of them Sixthly It seems evident that they divided not the World into Provinces among them because it was so long before they thought it to be their duty to preach unto the Gentiles Peter must have a Vision first before he will go to Cornelius and as yet we see they retained that perswasion that it is unlawful for a Iew to keep company or come unto one that is of another Nation Acts 10. 28. Nay more then this Peter is accused for this very action before the Apostles at Ierusalem Acts 11. 2 3. and they laid this aâ— the ground of their quarrel that he went in to men uncircumcised and did eat with them how this is reconcilable with the whole Worlds being divided into Provinces so early among the Apostles is not easie to conceive unlesse some of them thought it unlawful to go to their own Provinces which certainly must be of the Gentiles most of them Seventhly Another evidence that Provinces were not divided so soon is that Peters province so much spoken of viz. That of the circumcision fell not to his share till near twenty years after this time we now speak of upon the agreement between Paul and Peter at Ierusalem If Province had been so soon divided how comes the Apostleship of the Circumcision to be now at last attributed to Peter Was it not known what Peters Province was before this time and if it was how come Paul and he now to agree about dividing their Provinces Nay further Eighthly These Provinces after all this time were not so divided as to exclude one from anothers Province which is requisite for a distribution of them much lesse were they
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
in summi sacerdotis dignitate pendet cui si non exsors quaedam ab omnibus eminens detur potestas tot in Ecclesiis efficientur schismata quot sacerdotes Where nothing can be more evident than that he would have some supereminent power attributed to the Bishop for preventing schisms in the Church But granting some passages may have a more favourable aspect towards the superiority of Bishops over Presbyters in his other writings I would fain know whether a mans judgment must be taken from occasional and incidental passages or from designed and set discourses which is as much as to ask whether the lively representation of a man by picture may be best taken when in haste of other business he passeth by us giving only a glance of his Countenance or when he purposely and designedly sits in order to that end that his countenance may be truly represented Besides it is well known that Hierom in his Commentaries on Scripture where he doth not expresly declare his own opinion doth often transcribe what he finds in others without setting down the name of any Authour he had it from For which we have his ingenuous confession in his Epistle to Augustine Itaque ut simpliciter fatear legi haec omnia speaking of former Commentaries in mente mea plurima conservans accito notario vel mea vel aliena dictavi nec ordinis nec verborum interdum nec sensuum memor A strange way of writing Commentaries on Scripture wherein a man having jumbled other mens notions together in his brain by a kind of lottery draws out what next comes to hand without any choice yet this we see was his practice and therefore he puts Austin to this hard task of examining what all other men had writ before him and whether he had not transcribed out of them before he would have him charge him with any thing which he finds in his Commentaries How angry then would that hasty Adversary have been if men had told him he had contradicted himself in what he writes on the forty fifth Psalm about Bishops if it be compared with his Commentaries on Titus where he professeth to declare his opinion or his Epistles to Evagrius and Oceanus But yet some thing is pleaded even from those places in Hierom wherein he declares his opinion more fully as though his opinion was only that Christ himself did not appoint Episcopacy which they say he means by Dominica dispositio but that the Apostles did it which in opposition to the former he calls Ecclesiae consuetudo but elsewhere explains it by traditio Apostolica and this they prove by two things First The occasion of the institution of Episcopacy which is thus set down by him antequam Diaboli instinctu studia in religione fierent diceretur in populis Ego sum Pauli ego Apollo ego autem Cephae communi Presbyterorum consilio Ecclesiae guber nabantur Thence it is argued that the time of this Institution of Bishops was when it was said at Corinth I am of Paul I of Apollos and I of Cephas which was certainly in Apostol cal times But to this it is answered First That it is impossible Hieroms meaning should be restrained to that individual time because the arguments which Hierom brings that the name and office of Bishops and Presbyters were the same were from things done after this time Pauls first Epistle to the Corinthians wherein he reproves their schisms was written according to Ludovicus Cappellus in the tweâ—fth year of Claudius of Christ fifty one after which Paul writ his Epistle to Titus from whose words Hierom grounds his discourse but most certainly Pauls Epistle to the Philippians was not written till Paul was prisoner at Rome the time of the writing of it is placed by Cappellus in the third of Nero of Christ 56. by Blondell 57. by our Lightfoot 59. by all long after the former to the Corinthians yet from the first verse of this Epistle Hierom fetcheth one of his arguments So Pauls charge to the Elders at Miletus Peters Epistle to the dispersed Jews were after that time too yet from these are fetched two more of Hieroms arguments Had he then so little common sense as to say that Episcopacy was instituted upon the schism at Corinth and yet bring all his arguments for parity after the time that he sâ—â—s for the Institution of Episcopacy But secondly Hierom doth not say cum diceretur apud Corinthios Ego sum Pauli c. but cum diceretur in populis Ego sum Pauli c so that he speaks not of that particular schism but of a general and universal schism abroad among most people which was the occasion of appointing Bishops and so speaks of others imitating the schism and language of the Corinthians Thirdly had Episcopacy been instituted on the occasion of the schism at Corinth certainly of all places we should the soonest have heard of a Bishop at Corinth for the remedying of it and yet almost of all places those Heralds that derive the succession of Bishops from the Apostles times are the most plunged whom to fix on at Corinth And they that can find any one single Bishop at Corinth at the time when Clemens writ his Epistle to them about another schism as great as the former which certainly had not been according to their opinion if a Bishop had been there before must have better eyes and judgement than the deservedly admired Grotius who brings this in his Epistle to Bignonius as one argument of the undoubted antiquity of that Epistle Quod nusquam meminit exsortis illius Episcoporum auctoritatis quae Ecclesiae consuetudine post Marci mortem Alexandriae atque eo exemplo alibi introduci coepit sed planè ut Paulus Apostolus ostendit Ecclesias communi Presbyterorum qui iidem omnes Episcopi ipsi Pauloque dicuntur consilio fuisse gubernatas What could be said with greater freedom that there was no such Episcopacy then at Corinth Fourthly They who use this argument are greater strangers to St. Ierom's language than they would seem to be whose custome it is upon incidental occasions to accommodate the phrase and language of Scripture to them as when he speaks of Chrysostom's fall Cecidit Babylon cecidit of the Bishops of Palestine Multi utroque claudicant pede of the Roman Clergy Pharisaeorum conclamavit Senatus but which is most clear to our purpose he applyes this very speech to the men of his own time Quando non id ipsum omnes loquimur alius dicit Ego sum Pauli ego Apollo ego Cephae dividimus spiritûs unitatem eam in partes membra discerpimus All which instances are produced by Blondell but have the good fortune to be past over without being taken notice of But supposing say they that it was not till after the schism at Corinth yet it must needs be done by the Apostles else how could it be said to be
themselves as one body and met together as occasion served them where either the chief of the Governours of the Church the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in Iustin Martyrs language did perform the solemn part of divine Worship or some other of the Elders that were present with them Is it not strange for men to dream of set-times and Canonical hours and publike places of assemblies at that time when their chief times of meeting were in the night or very early in the morning which Pliny calls conventus antelucanus whence they were called latebrosa lucifugax natio and were fain to make use of wax-lights which from that custome the Papists continue still in their Tapers alwayes burning upon the Altar from what reason I know not unless to shew the darkness of error and superstition which that Church lyes under still and the places of the Christians meetings were generally either some private rooms or some grotts or Cryptae Vaults under ground where they might be least discerned or taken notice of or in the Coemeteria the Martyrum memoriae as they called them where their common assemblies were Thence Pontius Paulinus speaking of the Edict of Valerian against the Christians Iussum est ut nulla conciliabula faciant neque coemeteria ingrediantur Indeed when they had any publick liberty granted them they were so mindful of their duties of publick profession of the Faith as to make use of publick places for the worship of God as appears by Lampridius in the life of Alexander Sâ—verus Quum Christiani quendam locum qui publicus fuerat occupassent contrà popinarii dicerent sibi cum deberi rescripsit melius esse ut quomâ—docunque illic Deus colatur quam popinariis dedatur But in times of persecution it is most improbable that there should be any fixed Congregations and places when the Christians were so much hunted after and inquired for as appears by the former Epistle of Pliny and the known Rescript of Trajan upon it so much exagitated by Tertullian They did meet often it is certain ad confaederandum disciplinam at which meetings Tertullian tells us Praesident probati quique seniores which he elsewhere explains by Consessus ordiâ—is the bench of officers in the Church which did in common consult for the good of the Church without any Cantonizing the Christians into severall distinct and fixed Congregations But after that believers were much increased and any peace or liberty obtained they then began to contrive the distribution of the work among the several Officers of the Church and to settle the several bounds over which every Presbyter was to take his charge but yet so as that every Presbyter retained a double aspect of his Office the one particular to his charge the other generall respecting the Church in common For it is but a weak conceit to imagine that after the setling of Congregations every one had a distinct presbytery to rule it which we find not any obseure footsteps of in any of the ancient Churches but there was still one Ecclesiastical Senate which ruled all the several Congregations of those Cities in common of which the several Presbyters of the Congregations were members and in which the Bishop acted as the President of the Senate for the better governing the affairs of the Church And thus we find Cornelius at Rome sitting there cum florentissimo Clero thus Cyprian at Carthage one who pleads as much as any for obedience to Bishops and yet none more evident for the presence and joint concurrence and assistance of the Clergy at all Church debates whose resolution from his first entrance into his Bâ—shoprick was to do all things communi concilio Clericorum with the Common-Council of the Clergy and sayes they were cum Episcopo sacerdotali honore conjuncti Victor at Rome decreed Easter to be kept on the Lords day collatione facta cum Presbyteris Diaconibus according to the Latine of that age as Damasus the supposed Authour of the lives of the Popes tells us In the proceedings against Novatus at Rome we have a clear Testimony of the concurrence of Presbyters where a great Synod was called as Eâ—sebius expresseth it of sixty Bishops but more Presbyters and Deacons and what is more full to our purpose not onely the several Presbyters of the City but the Country Pastours 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 did likewâ—se give their advice about that business At this time Cornelius tells us there were forty six Presbyters in that one City of Rome who concurred with him in condemning Novatus So at Antioch in the case of Paulus Samosatenus we find a Synod gathered consisting of Bishops Presbyters and Deacons and in their name the Synodal Epistle is penned and directed to the same in all the Catholick Church At the Council of Eliberis in Spain were present but ninteen Bishops and twenty six Presbyters The case between Sylvanus Bishop of Cirta in Africk and Nundinaris the Deacon was referred by Purpuriuâ— to the Clergy to decide it For the presence of Presbyters at Synods instances are brought 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by Blondel in his Apology And that they concurred in governing the Church and not onely by their Counsel but Authority appears from the general Sense of the Church of God even when Episcopacy was at the highest Nazianzen speaking of the Office of Presbyters 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 he knew not whether to call it Ministry or Superintendency and those who are made Presbyters 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 from being ruled they ascend to be rulers themselves And their power by him is in several places called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 they are called by him 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Chrysostome gives this as the reason of Pauls passing over from Bishops to Deacons without naming Presbyters 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Because there is no great matter of difference between a Bishop and Presbyters for these likewise have the instruction and charge of the Church committed to them which words Theophylact Chrysostomes Eccho repeats after him which the Council of Aquen thus expresseth Presbyterorum verô qui praesunt Ecclesiâ— Christi ministerium esse videtur ut in doctrina praesint populis in Officio praedicandi nec in aliquo desides invâ—nti appareant Clemens Alexandrinus before all these speaking of himself and his fellow-Presbyters 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 We are Pastors and Rulers of the Churches And that proper Acts of Discipline were performed by them appears both by the Epistles of the Roman Clergy about their preserving Discipline to Cyprian and likewise by the Act of that Clergy in excluding Marcion from communion with them So the Presbyters of the Church of Ephesus excommunicated Noetus for after they had cited him before them and found him obstinate in his Heresie 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 they put both him and his Disciples out of the Church together Thus we see what the
Rome distinct from the Citie and the Church in it For in that sense 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is opposed to living in the City and so 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 are distinct from the Citizens as in Thucydides and others but I believe no instance can possibly be produced wherein 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 taken in that sense doth comprehend in it both City and Country But being taken in the former sense it was first applyed to the whole Church of the City but when the Church of the City did spread it self into the Countrey then the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 comprehended the Christians both in City and Countrey adjoyning to it Which leads me to the second step of Christian Churches when Churches took in the Villages and Territories adjoyning to the Cities For which we must understand that the ground of the subordination of the Villages and Territories about did primarily arise from hence that the Gospel was spread abroad from the several Cities into the Countreys about The Apostles themselves preachedmost as we read in Scripture in the Cities because of the great resort of people thither there they planted Churches and setled the Government of them in an Ecclesiastical Senate which not only took care for the government of Churches already constituted but for the gathering more Now the persons who were employed in the conversion of the adjacent Territories being of the Clergy of the City the persons by them converted were adjoyned to the Church of the City and all the affairs of those lesser Churches were at first determined by the Governours of the City Afterwards when these Churches encreased and had peculiar Officers set over them by the Senate of the City-church although these did rule and govern their flock yet it alwayes was with a subordination to and dependance upon the government of the City-church So that by this means he that was President of the Senate in the City did likewise superintend all the Churches planted in the adjoyning Territories which was the original of that which the Greeks call 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Latins the Diocess of the Bishop The Church where the Bishop was peculiarly resident with the Clergy was called Matrix Ecclesia and Cathedra principaliâ— as the several Parishes which at first were divided according to the several regions of the City were called Tituli and those planted in the Territories about the City called Paroeciae when they were applyed to the Presbyters but when to the Bishop it noted a Diocess those that were planted in these country-parishes were called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by the Greeks and by the Latins Presbyteri regionarii conregionales forastici ruriâ— agrorum Presbyteri from whom the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 were distinct as evidently appears by the thirteenth Canon of the Council of Neocaesarea where the countrey Presbyters are forbidden to administer the Lords Supper in the presence of the Bishop on the Presbyters of the City but the Chorepiscopi were allowed to do it Salmasiuâ— thinks these 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 were so called as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Episcopi villani such as were only Presbyters and were set over the Churches in Villages but though they were originally Presbyters yet they were â—aised to some higher authority over the rest of the Presbyters and the original of them seems to be that when Churches were so much multiplyed in the Countreys adjacent to the Cities that the Bishop in his own person could not be present to oversee the actions and carriages of the several Presbyters of the countrey Churches then they ordained some of the fittest in their several Dioceses to super intend the several Presbyters lying remore from the City from which office of theirs they were called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 because they did 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 go about and visit the several Churches This is the account given of them by Beza and Blondel as well as others All those several places that were converted to the saith by the assistance of the Presbyters of the City did all make but one Church with the City Whereof we have this twofold evidence First from the Eulogiâ— which were at first parcels of the bread consecrated for the Lords Supper which were sent by the Deacons or Acâ—luthi to those that were absent in token of their communion in the same Church Iustin Martyr is the first who acquaints us with this custome of the Church After saith he the President of the Assembly hath consecrated the bread and wine the Deacons stand ready to distribute it to every one person 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and carry it to those that are absent Damascus attributes the beginning of this custome to Miltiades Bishop of Rome Hic fecit ut Oblationes consecratâ— per Ecclesias ex consecratione Episcopi dirigerentur quod declaratur fermentum So Innocentius ad Decentium De fermento verò quod die Dominica per titulos mittimus c. ut se à nostra communione maxime illa die non judicent separaâ—osâ— Whereby it appears to have been the custome of Rome and other places to send from the Cathedral Church the bread consecrated to the several parish-Churches to note their joint-joint-communion in the faith of the Gospel Neither was it sent only to the several tituli in the City but to the Villages round about as appears by the Question propounded by Dâ—centius although at Rome it seems they sent it only to the Churches within the City as appears by the answer of Innocentius but Albaspinus takes it for granted as a general custome upon some set-dayes to send these Eulogiâ— through the whole Diocess Nam cum per vicos agros sparsi diffusâ— ex â—adem non pâ—ssint sumere communione cuperentque sâ—mper union is Christianâ— Christi corporis speciem quam pâ—ssint maximam râ—tinere solâ—â—nissimis diâ—bus festivis ex matrice per parochias bene dictus mitâ—ebatur panis ex â—ujus pâ—rceptione communitas quae inter omnes fideles â—jusdem Dâ—oecesis intercedere debet intelligebatur repraesentabatur Surely then the Diocesses were not very large iâ— all the several parishes could communicate on the same day with what was sent from the Cathedral Church Afterwards they sent not part of the bread of the Lords-supper but some other in Analogy to that to denote their mutual contesseration in the saith and communion in the same Church Secondly It appears that still they were of the same Church by the presence of the Clergy of the Countrey or the choyce of the Bishop of the City and at Ordinations and in Councils So at the choyce of Boniface Relictis singuli titulis suis Presbyteri omnes aderunt qui voluntatem suam hoc est Dâ—i judicium proloquantur whereby it is evident that all the Clergy had their voyces in the choyce of the Bishop And therefore Pope Lâ—o requires these things as necessary to the
may be determined by lawfull authority and what is so determined by that authority doth bind men to obedience as hath been proved by the 5. Hypothesis in the entrance of this Treatise I conclude all with this earnest desire That the wise and Gracious God would send us one heart and one way that he would be the Composer of our differences and the repairer of our breaches that of our strange divisions and unchristian animosities While we pretend to serve the Prince of peace we may at last see THE END Glory to God on high on earth peace good will towards men Luke 2. 14. A Discourse concerning the Power of EXCOMMUNICATION in a Christian Church The Name of Power in a Church explained The mistake of which the Foundation of Erastianism The Notion of the Church opened as it is the subject of Power The Church proved to be a Society distinct from the Common-wealth by reason of its different Nature and divine Institution distinct Officers different Rights and Ends and peculiar Offences The Power of the Church doth not arise from meâ—r confederation The Churches Power founded on the nature of the Christian Society and not on particular Precepts The Power of Church-Officers not meerly Doctrinal proved by several Arguments Church-Power as to particular persons antecedent to confederation The Power of the Keys relates to Baptism The Churches Power extends to Excommunication what it is and what grounds it had under the Law No exclusion from Temple-worship among the Iews Excommunication necessary in a Christian Church because of the conditions supposed to communion in it Of the Incestuous person and the Grounds of the Apostolical censure Objections against Excommunication answered The fundamental Rights of the Church continue after its being incorporated into the civil State The Magistrates Power as to Excommunication cleared IT is a matter of daily observation and experience in the World how hard it is to keep the eyes of the understanding clear in its judgement of things when it is too far engaged in the dust of Controversie It being so very difficult to well manage an impetuous pursuit after any Opinion nothing being more common than to see men out-run their mark and through the force of their speed to be carried as far beyond it as others in their Opinion fall short of it There is certainly a kind of ebriety of the mind as well as of the body which makes it so unstable and pendulous that it oft times reels from one extream unto the quite contrary This as it is obvious in most eager controvertists of all Ages so especially in such who have discovered the â—alsity of an opinion they were once confident of which they think they can never after run far enough from So that while they start at an apparition they so much dread they run into those untroden paths wherein they lose both themselves and the Truth they sought for Thus we find it to be in the present controversie for many out of their just zeal against the extravagancies of those who scrued up Church-Power to so high a peg that it was thought to make perpetual discord with the Common wealth could never think themselves free from so great an inconvenience till they had melted down all Spiritual Power into the civil State and dissolved the Church into the Common-wealth But that the World way see I have not been more forward to assert the just power of the Magistrate in Ecclesiasticals as well as Civils than to defend the Fundamental Rights of the Church I have taken this opportunity more fully to explain and vindicate that part of the Churches-Power which lies in reference to Offenders It being the main thing struck at by those who are the followers of that noted Physician who handled the Church so ill as to deprive her of her expulsive faculty of Noxious humours and so left her under a Miserere meî I shall therefore endeavour to give the Church her due as well as Caesar his by making good this following Principle or Hypothesis upon which the whole hinge of this Controversie turns viz. That the power of inflicting censure upon Offenders in a Christian Church is a fundamental Right resuâ—â—â—â—g from the constitution of the Church as a Society by Jesus Christ and that the seat of this Power is in those Officers of the Church who have derived their power Originally from the Founder of this Society and act by vertue of the Laws of it For the clear stating of this Controversie it will be necessary to explain what that Power is which I attribute to the Church and in what notion the Church is to be considered as it exerciseth this Power First concerning the proper notion of Power by it I cannot see any thing else to be understood than a right of governing or ordering things which belong to a Society And so Power implies onely a moral faculty in the person enjoying it to take care ne quid civitas detrimenti capiat whereby it is evident that every well constituted Society must suppose a Power within its self of ordering things belonging to its welfare or else it were impossible either the being or the rights and priviledges of a Society could be long preserved Power then in its general and abstracted notion doth not necessarily import either meer Authority or proper Coaction for these to any impartial judgement will appear to be rather the several modes whereby power is exercised than any proper ingredients of the specifick Nature of it which in general imports no more then a right to govern a constituted Society but how that right shall be exercised must be resolved not from the notion of Power but from the nature and constitution of that particular Society in which it is lodged and inherent It appears then from hence to be a great mistake and abuse of well-natured Readers when all Power is necessarily restrained either to that which is properly Coâ—rcive or to that which is meerly Arbitrary and onely from consent The Original of which mistake is the stating the Notion of Power from the use of the Word either in ancient Roman Authours or else in the Civil Laws both which are freely acknowledged to be strangeâ— to the exercise of any other Power than that which iâ— meerly authoritative and perswasive or that which is Coactive and Penal The ground of which is because they were ignorant of any other way of conveyance of power besides external force and Arbitrary consent the one in those called Legal Societies or Civitates the other Collegia and Hetaeriae But to as that do acknowledge that God hath a right of commanding men to what Duty he please himself and appointing a Society upon what terms best please him and giving a Power to particular persons to govern that Society in what way shall tend most to advance the Honour of such a Society may easily be made appear that there is a kind of Power neither properly
Ordinances which suppose admission into the Church by Baptism do thereby suppose an all-sufficient Sacrifice offered for the expiation of sin and consequently â—he subsequent priviledges do not immediately Relate to the obtaining of that but a gratefull commemoration of the Deatâ— of Christ and a celebration of the infinite mercy and goodness of God in the way of Redemption found out by the death of his Son And therefore it stands to great reason that such Persons who by their profane and unworthy lives dishonour so Holy a profession should not be owned to be as good and sound Members of the Society â—ounded on so Sacred a Foundation as the most Christian and Religious Persons To this I know nothing can be objected but that first The Passover was commemorative among the Iews and Secondly That the priviledges of that people were then very great above other people and therefore if God had intended any such thing as Excommunication among his peoplè it would have been in use then To these I answer 1. I grant the Passeover was commemorative as to the occasion of its Institution but then it was withal Typical and annunciative of that Lamb of God who was to take away the sins of the world and therefore no person who desired expiation of sins was to bee debarred from it but the Lords-supper under the Gospel hath nothing in it propitiatory but is intended as a Feast upon a Sacrifice and a Federal Rite as hath been fully cleared by a very learned person in his discourse about the true notion of the Lords Supper 2. I grant the Iews had very many priviledges above other Nations Nay so far that the whole body of the people were looked upon as Gods chosen and peculiar and holy people and from thence I justly inferr that whatever exclusion was among the people of the Iews from their society will far better hold as an argument for Excommunication under the Christian Church than if it had been a meer debarring from their Levitical Worship And that I should far sooner insist upon from the reason assigned as the ground of Excommunication then the other infirm and proâ—ligated Argument and so the Exclusion out of the Camp of Israel and the Cerith among the Iews whatever we understand by it may à pari hold to be a ground of exclusion from the Christian Society In imitation of which I rather suppose that exclusion out of the Synagogues was after taken up rather then as a meer Out lawry when they were deprived of Civil Power The Question then being thus clearly stated it amounts to this Whether under the Gospel there be any power in the Officers of the Church by vertue of Divine Institution to exclude any Offenders out of the Christian Society for transgressing the Laws of it And according to our former Propositions I suppose it will be sufficient to prove that power to bee of Divine Institution if I prove it to bee fundamentally and intrinsecally resident in the Society its self For whatever doth immediately result from the Society its self must have the same Original which the subject hath because this hath the nature of an inseparable property resulting from its constitution For the clearing of which I shall lay down my thoughts of it as clearly and methodically as I can and that in these following Hypotheses 1. Where there is a power of declaring any person to bee no true member of the Society hee is in there is a formal power of Excommunication For this is all which I intend by it viz. an authoritative pronouncing virtute officii any convict Offender to have forfeited his interest in the Church as a Christian society and to lose all the priviledges of it So that if this power be lodged in any Church Officer then he hath power formally to Excommunicate 2. Where the enjoyment of the priviledges of a society is not absolute and necessary but depends upon conditions to bee performed by every member of which the Society is Iudge there is a power in the Rulers of that Society to debar any person from such priviledges upon non-performance of the conditions As supposing the jus Civitatis to depend upon defending the Rights of the City upon a failing in reference to this in any person admitted to Citizen-ship the Rulers of the City have the same power to take that Right away which they had at first to give iâ— because that Right was never absolutely given but upon supposition that the person did not overthrow the ends for which it was bestowed upon him 3. The Church is such a Society in which Communion is not absolute and necessary but it doth depend upon the performance of some Conditions of which the Governours of it are the competent Iudges And that appears 1. Because the admission into the Church depends upon conditions to be judged by Pastors as in case of adult persons requiring Baptism and the children of Infidels being Baptized in both which cases it is evident that conditions are pre-requisite of which the Pastors are Iudges 2. Because the priviledges of this Society do require a separation from other Societies in the world and call for greater Holiness and purity of life and those very priviledges are pledges of greater benefits which belong only to persons qualified with suitable conditions it would therefore bee a very great dishonour to this Society if it lay as common and open as other Societies in the World do and no more qualifications required from the members of it 3. Wee have instances in the sacred Records of Apostolical times of such scandals which have been the ground of the exclusion of the persons guilty of them from the priviledges of the Christian society And here I suppose we may notwithstanding all the little evasions which have been found out â—ix on the incestuous person in the Church of Corinth As to which I lay not the force of the argument upon the manner of execution of the censure then viz. by delegation from an Apostle or the Apostolical Rod or delivering to Satan for I freely grant that these did then import an extraordinary power in the Apostles over offenders But I say the ground and reason of the exercise of that power in such an extraordinary manner at that time doth still continue although not in that visible extraordinary effect which it then had And whatever practice is founded upon grounds perpetual and common that practice must continue as long as the grounds of it do and the Churches capacity w 〈…〉 dmit which hypothesis is the only rational foundation on which Episcopal Government in the Church doth stand firm and unshaken and which in the former Discourse I am far from undermining of as an intelligent Reader may perceive now I say that it is evident that the reasons of the Apostles censure of that person are not fetched from the want of Christian Magistrates but from such things which will hold as long as any Christian Church
which are the dishonour of the Society 1 Corinth 4. 1. the spreading of such corruptions further if they pass uncensured 1 Corinth 5. 6. and amendment of the person 1 Cor. 5. 5. Upon these pillars the power of censures rests it self in the Church of God which are the main grounds of penalties in all Societies whatsoever viz. the preservation of the honour of them and preventing of further mischief and doing good to the offending party And that which seems to add a great deal oâ— weight to this instance is that the Apostle checks the Corinthians that before the exercise of the Apostolical Rod they were not of themselves sensible of so great a dishonour to the Church as that was and had not used some means for the removing such a person from their Society And ye are puffed up and have not rather mourned that hee that hath done this deed may be taken away from among you 1 Corinth 5. 2. Therein implying that whether there had been such a thing in the Church or no as the Apostolical Rod it had been the duty of a Christian Society to have done their endeavour in order to the removing such a person from their number But further I cannot understand how it should bee a duty in Christians to withdraw from every brother who walketh disorderly and Church-Officers not to have power to pronounce such a person to be withdrawn from which amounts to excommunication It is not to mee at all material whether they did immediately relate to Civil or Sacred converse concerning which there is so much dispute for in which soever we place it if Church-officers have a power to pronounce such a person to be withdrawn from they have a power of excommunication so we consider this penalty as inflicted on the person in his relation to the Society as a Christian and wiâ—hall how neerly conjoyned their civil and spiritual eating were together 1 Corinth 11. 20 21. and how strongly the argument will hold from Civil to Sacred viz. à remotione unius ad remotionem alterius not from any fancied pollution in Sacris from the company of wicked men but from the dishonour reflecting on the Society from such unworthy persons parâ—aking of the hâ—ghest priviledges of it Thus from these three Hypotheses this Corollary follows that where any persons in a Church do by their open and contumacious offences declare to the world that they are far from being the persons they were supposed to be in their admission into the Church there is a power resident in the Pastors of the Church to debar such persons from the priviledges of it and consequently from Communion in the Lords Supper 1. Because this expresseth the nearest union and closest confederation as the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 among the Grecians Commonwealths did 2. Because this hath been alwayes looked on with greatest veneration in the Church of God and therefore it is least of all fit those persons should be admitted to the highest priviledges of the Church which are unworthy of the lowest of them There remain only some few Objections which are levelled against this opinion concerning the power of excommunication which from the Question being thus stated and proved will be soon removed The first is that this excommunication is an outward punishment and therefore belongs not to Church officers but to the Magistrate 2. Because it neither is nor ever was in the power of any Church officer to debar any offending member from publick worship because any Heathens may come to it 3. It cannot lye as to exclusion from the Lords Supper because Christ is offered as spiritual food as well in the Word Preached as in the Sacrament To these I answer 1. I do not well understand what the Objectors mean by an outward punishment for there can be no punishment belonging to a visible Society such as the Church is here considered to be but it must be visible i. e. outward or a thing to be taken notice of in the World and in this sense I deny that all visible punishment belongs only to the Magistrate but if by outward be meanâ— forcible punishment then I grant that all coactive power belongs to the Magistrate but I deny that excommunication formally considered is a forcible punishment 1. Because every person at his entrance into this Society is supposed to declare his submission to the rules of the Society and therefore whatever he after undergoes by way of penalty in this Society doth depend upon that consent 2. A person stands excommunicate legally and de jure who is declared authoritatively to be no member of the Society though he may be present at the acts of it as a defranchised person may be at those of a Corporation 3. A person falling into those offences which merit excommunication is supposed in so doing voluntarily to renounce his interest in those priviledges the enjoyment of which doth depend upon abstaining from those offences which he wilfully falls into especially if contumacy be joyned with them a 〈…〉 is before excommunication for then nothing is done forcibly towards him for he first relinquisheth his right before the Church-Governor declares him excluded the Society So that the offender doth meritoriously excommunicate himself the Pastor doth it formally by declaring that he hath made himself no member by his offences and contumacy joyned with them To the second I answer That I do not place the formality of excommunication in exclusion from hearing the Word but in debarring the person from hearing tanquam pars Ecclesiae as a member of the Church and so his hearing may be well joyned with that of Heathens and Infidels and not of members of the Church To the third I answer That exclusion from the Lords Supper is not on the accounts mentioned in the Objection but because it is one of the chiefest priviledges of the Church as it is a visible Society Having thus cleared and asserted the power of Excommunication in a Christian church there remains only one enquiry more which is Whether this power doth remain formally in the Church after its being incorporated into the Common wealth or else doth it then escheate wholly into the Civil Power The resolution of which question mainly depends on another spoken to already viz. Whether this power was only a kind of Widows estate which belonged to it only during its separation from the Civil Power or was the Church absolutely infeoffed of it as its perpetual Right belonging to it in all conditions whatsoever it should be in Now that must appear by the Tenure of it and the grounds on which it was conveyed which having been proved already to be perpetual and universal it from thence appears that no accession to the Church can invalidate its former title But then as in case of marriage the right of disposal and well management of the estate coming by the wife belongs to the husband so after the Church is married into the Common-wealth the
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 they consume the fomes morbi the root of the distemper by their serious endeavours after peace and holiness But instead of this the generality of men let all their Religion run up into Bryers and Thorns into Contentions and Parties as though Religion were indeed sacramentum militiae but more against fellow-Christians then the unquestionable hinderances of mens Eternal Happiness Men being very loath to put themselves to the trouble of a Holy Life are very ready to embrace any thing which may but dispense with that and if but listing mens selves under such a party may but shelter them under a disguise of Religion none more ready then such to be known by distinguishing names none more zealous in the defence of every tittle and punctilio that lies most remote from those essential duties wherein the Kingdome of God consists viz. Righteousness and Peace and Ioy in the Holy Ghost And hence all the several parties among us have given such glorious names onely to the outward Government of the Church the undoubted practise of the Apostles the Discipline of Christ the order of the Gospel and account onely that the Church where their own method of Government is observed just as the Historian observes of Brutus and Cassius Ubicunque ipsi essent praetexentes esse Rempublicam they think the Church can never be preserved but in that Vâ—ssel they are imbarked in As though Christ could not have caused his flock to rest sub Meridie unless the Pars Donati had been in the South And from this Monopolizing of Churches to parties hath proceeded that strange uncharitableness towards all who come not up to every circumstance of their way and method which is a piece of Prudence like that of Brutus who when he had raised those flames in the Common-wealth was continually calling Caesar Tyrant Ita enim appellari Caesarem facto ejus expediebat So when men have caused such lamentable Divisions in the Church by their several parties and factions it concerns them to condemn all others beside themselves leâ—t they most of all condemn themselves for making unnecessary Divisions in the Church of God This uncharitableness and ill opinion of all different parties onely gathers the fuel together and prepares combustible matter which wants nothing but the clashing of an adverse party acted upon Principles of a like Nature to make it break out into an open flame And such we have seen and with sadness and grief of heart felt it to be in the Bowels of our own Church and Nation by reason of those violent Calentures and Paroxysms of the spirits of men those heart-burnings and contentions which have been among us which will require both time and skill to purge out those noxious humours which have been the causes of them I know no prescriptions so likely to effect this happy end as an Infusion of the true spirits of Religion and the Revulsion of that extravasated blood into its proper channels Thereby to take men off from their eâ—ger pursuit after wayes and parties Nations and Opinions wherein many have run so far that they have left the best part of their Religion behind them and to bring them back to a right understanding of the nature design and principles of Christianity Christianity a Religion which it is next to a miracle men should ever quarrel or fall out about much less that it should be the occasion or at least the pretence of all that strife and bitterness of spirit of all those comentions and animosities which are at this day in the Christian World But our onely comfort is that whatever our spirits are our God is the God of peace our Saviour is the Prince of peace and that Wisdome which this Religion teacheth is both pure and peaceable It was that which once made our Religion so amiable in the judgement of imrartial heathens that nil nisi justum suadet lene the Court of a Christians Conscience was the best Court of Equity in the world Christians were once known by their 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the bâ—nignity and sweetness of their disposition by the Candour and Ingenuity of their spirits by their mutual love forbearance and condescension towards one another But Aut hoc non est Evangelium aut nos non sumus Evangelici Either this is not the practice of Christianity or it was never calculated for our Meridian wherein mens spirits are of too high an elevation for it If pride and uncharitableness if divisions and strifes if wrath and envy if animosities and contâ—ntions were but the marks oâ— true Christians Diogenesâ—â—â—â—er â—â—â—â—er need light his Lamp at noon to find out such among us But if a Spirit of meekness gentleness and condescension if a stooping to the weakness and infirmities of others if a pursuit after peace even when it flies from us be the indispensable duties and the characteristical notes of those that have more then the name of Christians it may possibly prove a difficult inquest to find out such for the crouds of those who shelter themselves under that glorious name Whence came it else to be so lately looked on as the way to advance Religion to banish Peace and to reform mens manners by taking away their lives whereas in those pure and primitive times when Religion did truly flourish it was accounted the greatest instance of the piety of Christians not to fight but to dye for Christ. It was never thought then that Bellona was a nursing Mother to the Church of God nor Mars a God of Reformation Religion was then propagated not by Christians shedding the blood of others but by laying down their own They thought there were other wayes to a Canaan of Reformation besides the passing through a Wilderness of Confusion and a red Sea of blood Origen could say of the Christians in his time 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 They had not yet learnt to make way for Religion into mens mind by the dint of the sword because they were the Disciples of that Saviour who never pressed Followers as men do Soldiers but said If any man will come after me let him take up his Cross not his sword and follow me His was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 his very commands shewed his meekness his Laws were sweet and gentle Laws not like Draco's that were writ in blood unless it were his own that gave them His design was to ease men of their former burdens and not to lay on more the duties be required were no other but such as were necessary and withall very just and reasonable He that came to take away the insupportable yoke of Iewish Ceremonies certainly did never intend to gall the necks of his Disciples with another instead of it And it would be strange the Church should require more then Christ himself did and make other conditions of her Communion then our Saviour did of Discipleship What possible reason can be assigned or given why such things should not be