Precept of Christ But with you it shall not be so But however an inequality of Power and Order for the Churches good is not thereby prohibited Which is sufficient for my purpose The next place to be considered is that in Matthew 18. 15 16 17. If thy brother shall trespass against thee go and tell him his fault between thee and him alone if he shall hear thee thou hast gained thy brother But if he will not hear thee then take with thee one or two more that in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established And if he shall neglect to hear them tell it to the Church but if he neglect to hear the Church let him be unto thee as an heathen man and a Publican It seems a very strange thing to consider that this one place hath been pressed by all parties to serve under them for the maintenance of their own particular form of Government so that as the Iews fable of the Manna it hath had a different taste according to the diversity of the palats of men Those that are for a Congregational Church being the first receptacle of Church power set this place in the front of their arguments Those who plead for Standing Presbyteries Lay-Elders subordination of Courts fetch all these out of this place Those that are for a Power of Church Discipline to be only lodged in a higher Order of Chur 〈…〉 Officers succeeding the Apostles derive the succession of that power from this place nay lest quidlibet should not be proved èquolibet the Papists despair not of proving the constant visibility of the Church the subordination of all to the Pope the infallibility of general Councils all out of this place Methinks then it might be argument enough of the incompetency of this place to determine any one particular form when it is with equal confidence on all sides brought to prove so many especially if it be made appear that the general Rule laid down in these words may be observed under a diversity of forms of Government For whether by the Church we mean the community of the faithful in a particular Congregation or the standing Officers of such a Church or a Consistorial Court or Synodical Assembly or higher Church-Officers it is still the duty of men in case of offences to tell the Church for redresse of grievances or vindication of the person himself that he hath discharged his duty This place then determines not what this Church is nor what the form of it◠Government should be when the sense of it holds good and true under such diversity of forms But we shall further enquire what influence this place can have upon the modelling the Government in the Church of God Fo◠Chamier tells us the prima Politia Ecclesiasticae origo is to be found in these words it will be then worth our enquiry to see what foundation for Church government can be drawn out of these words In which the variety of Expositions like a multitude of Physitians to a distempered Patient have left it worse then they found it I mean more difficult and obscure We shall therefore endeavour to lay aside all pre-conceptions by other mens judgements and opinions and see what innate Light there is in the Text it self to direct us to the full sense and meaning of it Two things the great difficulty of the place lyes in What the offences are here spoken of What the Church is which must b◠spoken to For the First I conceive it evident to any unprejudicated mind that the matter our Saviour speaks of is a matter of private offence and injury and not a matter of scandal as such considered in a Church-Society which I make appear thus First From the parallel place to this Luke 17. 3. 〈…〉 y Brother trespasse against thee rebuke him and if he repent forgive him This can be nothing else but a matter of private injury because it is in the power of every private person to forgive it which it was not in his power to do were it a matter of scandal to the whole Church unlesse we make it among Christians as it was among the Jews that every private person might excommunicate another and to release him afterward Secondly It manifestly appears from St. Peters words next after this Paragraph Matth. 18. 20. Lord how often shall my brother sin against me and I forgive him till seven times c. Christ answers him till seventy times seven that is as often as he doth it And thence Christ brings the parable of the King forgiving his Servants v. 23. Thirdly Were it meant of any scandalous sin committed with the privacy of any particular person as many understand trespassing against thee that is te conscio then this inconvenience must necessarily follow that matters of scandal must be brought to the Churches cognizance when there can be no way to decide them that is when one offends and only one person knows it here will be a single affirmation on one side and denyal on the other side and so there can be no way to decide it the matter here spoken of then is somewhat only relating to the offence or injury of some particular person and not a matter of scandal to the whole Church The Question then as propounded to be spoken to by our Saviour is What is to be done in case of private offences between man and man and not in case of secret sins against God and scandalous to the Church Now to this our Saviour layes down his answer gradually first there must be private admonition if that succeed not admonition before witnesses if not that telling the Church if not that neither reputing him as a Heathen and Publican Now in this answer we must conceive our Saviour speaks as to an ordinary case so in a way easie to be understood by all that heard him and therefore he must speak in allusion to what was at that time among the Jews in such cases which is freely acknowledged both by Calvin and Beza upon the place Nam certè tanquam de Iudais haec dici apparet saltem ex eo quod addit Sit tibi sicut Ethnicus Publicanus We must then see what the custom was among the Jews in such cases and how far our Saviour doth either approve the custome received or appoint new The Law was very strict in case of offences for every man in any wise to rebuke his Neighbour and not to suffer sin upon him Arguendo argues our old Translation renders it Thou shalt plainly rebuke thy Neighbour Now this piece of necessary Discipline our Saviour endeavours to recover among them which it seems was grown much out of use with them For Rabbi Chanina as Mr. Selden observes gave this as one reason of the destruction of Ierusalem because they left off reproving one another Non excisa fuissent Hierosolyma nisi quoniam alter alterum non coarguebat Our Saviour
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
wise men should do managed with the greatest subtilty and prudence by the maintainers of them Christ would make men see that his Doctrine stood not in need either of the wisdom or power of men to defend or propagate it and therefore made choice of the most unlikely Instruments for that end that mens faith should not stand in the wisdom of men but in the power of God But withall we are to take notice of Christs admirable wisdom in the means he used to fit and qualifie them for the first builders of his Church for although the power and efficacy of their preaching was wholly from God and not from themselves yet our Saviour doth not presenly upon his calling them place them in the highest Office he intended them for but proceeds gradually with them and keeps them a long time under his own eye and instruction before he sends them abroad and that for two ends chiefly First To be witnesses of his actions Secondly To be Auditors of his Doctrine First To be witnesses of his actions which was looked on by the Apostles as the most necessary qualification for an Apostle in the place fore-cited Acts 1. 21 22. Peter calls himself a witnesse of the sufferings of Christ 1 Pet. 5. 1. Iohn saith That which was from the beginning which we have heard which we have seen with our eyes which we have looked upon and our hâ—â—ds have handled of the Word of Life that which we have seen and heard declare we unto you 1 John 1. 1 3. whereby the credibility of the Gospel was sufficiently evidenced to the World when the chief Preachers of it spoke nothing but what their own senses were witnesses of both as to the Doctrine and actions of Christ and therefore it is no wayes credible they should be deceived themselves in what they spoke and more improbable they would deceive others whose interest lay wholly upon the truth of the Doctrine which they Preoched for by the very Preaching of that Doctrine they rob'd themselves of all the comforts of Life and exposed themselves to a thousand miseries in this Life so that unlesse their Doctrine was true in order to another Life they were guilty of the greatest folly this World ever heard of We see what care our Saviour took to satisfie the reasons of men concerning the credibility of his Doctrine when the persons he employed in the founding a Church upon it were only such as were intimately conversant with the whole Life Doctrine and Works of him from whom they received it and thereby we cannot suppose any ignorance in them concerning the things they spoke and lest men should mistrust they might have a design to impose on others he made their faithfulness appear by their exposing themselves to any hazards to make good the truth of what they preached Especially having such a Divine Power accompanying them in the Miracles wrought by them which were enough to perswade any rational men that they came upon a true Embassie who carryed such Credentials along with them Another end of our Saviours training up his Apostles so long in his School before he sent them abroad was that they might be Auditors of his Doctrine and so might learn themselves before they taught others Christ was no friend to those hasty births which run abroad with the shell on their heads no although it was in his power to conferr the gifts of the Holy Ghost as well at their first entrance into Discipleship as afterwards yet we see he nuâ—tures and trains them up gradually teaching them as Quintilian would have Masters do guttatim acquainting them now with one then with another of the Mysteries of the Gospel Christ doth not overwhelm them with floods and torrents of Discourses but gently drops now one thing into them then another by which way such narrow-mouthed Vessels would be the soonest filled Yea our Saviour useth such â—n 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as the Greek Fathers call it such a prudent temper in instructing them that it is matter of just admiration to consider under how great and stupendious ignorance of the main points of Redemption Christs Death and Resurrection and the nature of Christs Kingdom they discovered after they had been some years under Christs Tutorage And we see what industry and diligence was used in the training up of those for the Apostleship who were in an immediate way sent out by Christ. And it is very probable that upon their first sending abroad they taught not by immediate Revelation but only what they had learned from Christ during their being with him Whence we see what a subordination there is in acquired parts labour and industry to the Teachings and Inspirations of the Divine Spirit our Saviour looked not on his labour as lost although afterwards the Unction from the Holy One should teach them all things It was Christs design to have them go 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 from strength to strength à domo sanctuarii in domum doctrinae as the Chaldee Paraphrast renders that place from one School of learning to another As under the Law even those that waited for the Râ—ach hakkodesh the inspiration of the Divine Spirit were brought up in the Schools of the Prophets under instruction there which was the place where they lay expecting the gentle gale of the Holy Spirit to carry them forth which was the ground of Amos his complaint that he was neither a Prophet nor the son of a Prophet by which it seems evident that Gods ordinary course was to take some of the Sons of the Prophets out of the Colledges where they lived and employ them in the Prophetical Office But of this largely elsewhere Such a School of the Prophets did our Saviour now erect wherein he entred his Disciples as Schollars and educated them in order to the Office he intended them for The next thing we take notice of is the name and nature of that Office which Christ call'd them to They who derive the use of the name of Apostles as applyed by Christ to his Disciples either from the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 at Athens by which name the Masters of some ships were called as the ships 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or from Hesychius his 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which he interprets 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or from the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the Sense of the Civil Law which signifie the dimâ—ssory Letters granted for appeals or from the Jewish 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as thereby were understood those 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as Epiphanius calls them who were as Assessours and Counsellours to the Patriarch of the Jewes at Tiberias or those Officers who were sent up and down by the Patriarch to gather up tenths first fruits and such other things who are called thence Apostoli in the Codex Theod. tit de Iudaeis all these I say do equally lose their labour and run far to fetch that which might be found much nearer
controversie as to the certainty of the form of Government instituted by Christ because of the Ambiguity of those Records as to the point of succession to the Apostles in that this succession might be only of a different degree in that it is not clear and convincing in all places in that where it is clearest it is meant of a succession of Doctrine and not of persons in that if it were of persons yet Presbyters are said to succeed the Apostles as well as Bishops by the same persons who speak of these By which last thing we have likewise cleared the Second thing propounded to shew the ambiguity of the Testimony of Antiquity which was the promiscuous use of the names of Bishop and Presbyters after the distinction between their office was brought in by the Church For we have made it appear that the names are promiscuously used when that succession which is sometimes attributed to Bishops is at other times given to Presbyters Other instances might be brought of that nature as first that of Clemens Romanus in his excellent Epistâ—e which like the River Alpâ—eus had run under ground for so many centuries of years but hath now in these last times of the world appeared publikely to the view of the World to make it appear how true that is which he saith the Apostles did foresee 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that there would be great contentions about the name of Episcopacy and so there are still and that from his Epistle too For when in one place he tells us that the Apostles ordained their first fruits to be Bishops and Deacons 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of those that should believe afterwards he makes no scruple of calling those Bishops Presbyters in several places 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. and speaking of the present schism at Corinth he saith it was a most shamefull thing and unworthy of Christians 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 To hear the firm and ancient Church of Corinth for the sake of one or two persons to raise a sedition against the Presbyters and afterwards 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Only lâ—t the flock of Christ enjoy its peace with the Presbyters which are set over it But because this is said to be spoken before the time of distinction between Bishops and Presbyters it being supposed that there were no subject Presbyters then although no reason can be assigned why the Apostles should ordain Bishops 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of those that should believe and should not likewise ordain Presbyters for them yet to take away all scruple we shall go farther when subject Presbyters as they are called are acknowledged to be and yet Bishops are call'd Presbyters then too For which we have the clear testimony of the Martyrs of the Gallican Church in their Epistle to Eleutherius Bishop of Rome who call Irenaeus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 when as Blondell observes he had been nine years Bishop of Lyons in the place of Pothinus neither doth Blondels argument lye here that because they call him the Presbyter of the Church therefore he was no Bishop as his Antagonist supposeth but he freely acknowledgeth him to have succeeded Pothinus there in his Bishoprick but because after the difference arose between Bishop and Presbyters yet they called him by the name of Presbyter it seems very improbable that when they were commending one to the Bishop of another Church they should make use of the lowest name of honour then appropriated to subject Presbyters which instead of commending were a great debasing of him if they had looked on a superiour order above those Presbyters as of divine institution and thought there had been so great a distance between a Bishop and subject Presbyters as we are made to believe there was Which is as if the Master of a Colledge in one University should be sent by the Fellows of his Society to the Heads of the other and should in his Commendatory letters to them be styled a Senior Fellow of that House Would not any one that read this imagine that there was no difference between a Senior Fellow and a Master but only a primacy of order that he was the first of the number without any power over the rest This was the case of Irenaeus he is supposed to be Bishop of the Church of Lyons he is sent by the Church of Lyons on a Message to the Bishop of Rome when notwithstanding his being Bishop they call him Presbyter of that Church when there were other Presbyters who were not Bishops what could any one imagine by the reading of it but that the Bishop was nothing else but the Seniour Presbyter or one that had a primacy of order among but no divine Right to a power of jurisdiction over his Fellow Presbyters More instances of this nature are brought there by that learned Author which the Reader may compare with the answers and then let him judge whether the Testimony of Antiquity have not too much ambiguity in it to decide the Controversie clearly on either side But that which seems yet more material is that which we observed in the third place that those who acknowledge the superiority of Bishops over Presbyters do impute it to an act of the Church and not ascribe it to any divine institution The testimony of Ierome to this purpose is well known and hath been produced already that of the counterfeit Ambiose but true Hilary is in every ones mouth upon this Controversie Quia primum Presbyteri Episcopi appellabantur ut recedente uno sequensti succederet sed quia coeperunt sequentes Presbyteri indigni inveniri ad primatus tenendos immutata est ratio prospiciente Coâ—cilio ut non ordo sed meritum crearet Episcopum multorum Sacerdotum judicio constitutum ne indignus temerâ— Usurparet esset multis scandalum Very strange that an opinion so directly contrary to the Divine right of Episcopâ—cy should be published by a Deacon of the Church of Rome and these Commentaries cited by Austin with applause of the person without stigmatizing him for a heretick with Aerius if it had been the opinion of the Church that Bishops in their power over Presbyters did succeed the Apostles by a Divine Right Nothing more clear then that he asserts all the difference between a Bishop and Presbyters to arise from an act of the Church choosing men for their deserts when before they succeeded in order of place It is a mistake of Blundels to attribute this to the Nicene Council doub less he means no more then that Hierom calls Concilium Presbyterorum or which he himself means by judicium Sacerdotum The testimony of Austin hath been already mentioned Secundum honorum vocabula quae jam Ecclesiae usus obtinuit Episcopatus Presbyterio major est Thereby implying it was not so alwayes else to what purpose serves that jam obtinuit and that the original of the difference was from the Church But more express and full is
ordination of a Bishop Subscriptio clericorum Honoratorum testimonium Ordinis consensus plebis and in the same chapter speaking of the choyce of the Bishop he saith it was done subscribentibus plus minus septuagintâ— Presbyteris And therefore it is observed that all the Clergy conâ—urred to the choyce even of the Bishop of Rome till after the time of that Hildebrand called Greg. 7. in whose time Popery came to Age thence Casaubon calls it Haeresin Hildebrandinam Cornelius Bishop of Rome was chosen Clericoram pene omnium testimonio and in the Council at Rome under Sylvâ—ster it is decreed that none of the Clergy should be ordained nisi cum tota adunata Ecclesia Many instances are brought from the Councils of Carthage to the same purpose which I pass over as commonly known It was accounted the matter of an accusation against Chrysostom by his enemies 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that he ordained without the Council and assistance of his Clergy The pâ—esence of the Clergy at Councils hath been already shewed Thus we see how when the Church of the City was enlarged into the Countrey the power of the Governours of the Churches in the City was extended with it The next step observable in the Churches encrease was when several of these Churches lying together in one Province did associate one with another The Primitive Church had a great eye to the preserving unity among all the members of it and thence they kept so strict a correspondency among the several Bishops in the Commercium Formatarum the formula of writing which to prevent deceit may be seen in Iustellus his Notes on the Codex Canonum Ecclesiae Africanae and for a maintaining of nearer correspondency among the Bishops themselves of a Province it was agreed among themselves for the better carrying on of their common work to call a Provincial Synod twice every year to debate all causes of concernment there among themselves and to agree upon such wayes as might most conduce to the advancing the common interest of Christianity Of these Tertullian speaks Aguntur praeceptâ— per Gracias illas certis in locis Concilia ex universis Ecclesâ—is per quae altiora quaeque in communi tractantur ipsa repraesentatio nominis Christiani magna vâ—neratione celebratur Of these the thirty eighth Canon Apostolical as it is called expresly speaks which Canons though not of authority sufficient to ground any right upon may yet be allowed the place of a Testimony of the practice of the Primitive Church especially towards the third Century 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Twice a year a Synod of Bishops was to be kept for discussing matters of faith and resolving matters of practice To the same purpose the Council of Antioch A. D. 343 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 To these Councils the Presbyters and Deacons came as appears by that Canon of the Council of Antioch and in the seventh Canon of the Nicene Council by Alphon us Pisanus the same custome is decâ—eed but no such thing occurrs in the Codex Canonum either of Tilius or Iustellus his Edition and the Arabick ediâ—â—â—â— of that Council is conceived to have been compiled above four hundred years after the Council set But however we see evidence enough of this practice of celebrating Provincial Synods twice a year now in the assembling of these Bishops together for mutual counsel in their affairs there was a necessity of some order to be observed There was no difference as to the power of the Bishops themselves who had all equal authority in their several Churches and none over one another For Episcopatus unus â—st cujus â— singulis in solidum pars tenetur as Cyprian speaks and as Ierome Ubicunq Episcopus fuerit sive Romae sive Eugubii sive Constantinopoli sive Râ—egii sive Alexandriae sive Tanis ejusdem est meriti ejusdem est Sacerdotii Potentia divitiarum paupertatis humilitas vel sublimiorem vel inferiorem Episcopum non facit Caterum omnes Apostolorum successores sunt There being then no difference between them no man calling himself Episcopum Episcoporum as Cyprian elsewhere speaks some other way must be found out to preserve order among them and to moderate the affairs of the Councils and therefore it was determined in the Council of Antioch that he that was the Bishop of the Metropolis should have the honour of Metropolitan among the Bishops 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 because of the great confluence of people to that City therefore he should have the prâ—heminence above the rest We see how far they are from attributing any Divine Right to Metropolitaus and therefore the rights of Metropolitans are called by the sixth Canon of the Nicene Council 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which had been a dishonourable introduction for the Metropolitan Rights had they thought them grounded upon Apostolical institution Nothing more evident in antiquity then the honour of Metropolitans depending upon their Sees thence when any Cities were raised by the Emperour to the honour of Metropoles their Bishop became a Metropolitan as is most evident in Iustiniana prima and for it there are Canons in the Councils decreeing it but of this more afterwards The chief Bishop of Africa was only called primae sedis Episcop 〈…〉 thence we have a Canon in the Codex Ecclesiae African◠〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 That the Bishop of the chief See should not be called the Exarch of the Priests or chief Priest or any thing of like nature but only the Bishop of the chief seat Therefore it hath been well observed that the African Churches did retain longest the Primitive simplicity and humility among them and when the voyce was said to be heard in the Church upon the flowing in of riches Hodie venenum effusum est in Ecclesiam by the working of which poyson the spirits of the Prelates began to swell with pride and ambition as is too evident in Church History only Africa escaped the infection most and resisted the tyrannical incroachments of the Roman Bishop with the greatest magnanimity and courage as may be seen by the excellent Epistle of the Council of Carthage to Boniface Bishop of Rome in the Codex Ecclesiae Africanae So thaâ— however Africa hath been alwayes fruitfull of Monsters yet in that ambitious age it had no other wonder but only this that it should escape so free from that typhus saecularis as they then called it that monstrous itch of pride and ambition From whence we may well rise to the last step of the power of the Church which was after the Empire grew Christian and many Provinces did associate together then the honour and power of Patriarchs came upon the stage And now began the whole Christian world to be the Cock pitt wherein the two great Prelates of Rome and Constantinople strive with their greatest force for mastery of one another and the whole world
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