from Philo Iudaeus Iosephus Appian Lucian and others But Secondly granting it used in the primary signification of the word yet it cannot be applied to the people but to Paul and Barnabas for it is not said that the people did 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but that Paul and Barnabas did 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 now where ever that word is used in its first signification it is implyed to be the action of the persons themselves giving suffrages and not for other persons appointing by the suffrages of others Thirdly 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 may import no more then 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in that laying on of the hands must suppose the stretching them out Which is onely a common figure in Scripture for the Antecedent to be put for the Consequent or one part for the whole action and concerning this sense of the word in Ecclesiastical Writers see the large quotations in Bishop Bilson to this purpose Fourthly It seems strangely improbable that the Apostles should put the choice at that time into the hands of the people when there were none fitted for the work the Apostles designed them for but whom the Apostles did lay their hands on by which the Holy Ghost sell upon them whereby they were fitted and qualified for that work The people then could no wayes choose men for their abilities when their abilities were consequenâ— to their ordination So much to clear the manner of Ordination to have been from the Synagogue The second thing we consider is The persons authorized to do it whom we consider under a double respect before their liberties were bound up by compact among themselves and after First Before they had restrained themselves of their own liberty then the general rule for Ordinations among them was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 every one regularly ordained himself had the power of Ordaining his Disciples as Maimonides affirms To the same purpose is that Testimony of the Gemara Babylonia in Master Selden 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Rabbi Abba Bar Ionah said that in times of old every one was wont to ordain his own Disciples to which purpose many instances are there brought But it is generally agreed among them that in the time of Hillel this course was altered and they were restrained from their former liberty in probability finding the many inconveniences of so common Ordinations or as they say out of their great reverence to the house of Hillel they then agreed that none should ordain others without the presence of the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Prince of the Sanhedrin or a license obtained from him for that end and it was determined that all Ordinations without the consent of the Prince of the Sanhedrin should be looked upon as null and void which is attested by the former Authors The same distinct on may be observed under the Gospel in reference to the fixed Officers of the Church for we may consider them in their first state and period as the Presbyters did rule the Churches in common as Hierom tells us communi Presbyterorum conciâ—io Ecclesiâ— gubernabantur before the jurisdiction of Presbyters was restrained by mutual consent in this instant doubtlesse the Presbyters enjoyed the same liberty that the Presbyters among the Jews did of ordaining other Presbyters by that power they were invested in at their own ordination To which purpose we shall only at present take notice of the Confession of two Canonists who are the hâ—ghest among the Papists for defence of a distinct order of Episcopacy Yet Gratian himself confesseth Sacros ordines dicimus Diaconatum Presbyteratum hos quidem solos Ecclesia primitiva habuisse dicitur And Iohannes Semeca in his Gloss upon the Canon Law Dicunt quidem quod in Ecclesia prima-primitiva commune erat officium Episcoporum Sacerdotum nomina erant communia Sed in secundâ primitivâ coeperunt distingui nomina officia Here we have a distinction of the Primitive Church very agreeable both to the opinion of Hierom and the matter we are now upon in the first Primitive Church the Presbyters all acted in common for the welfare of the Church and either did or might ordain others to the same authority with themselves because the intrinsecal power of order is equally in them and in those who were after appointed Governours over Presbyteries And the collation of orders doth come from the power of order and not meeâ—ly from the power of jurisdiction It being likewise fully acknowledged by the Schoolmen that Bishops are not superiour above Presbyters as to the power of order But the clearest evidence of this is in the Church of Alexandria of which Hierom speaks Nam Alexandria à Marco Evangelistâ usque ad Heraclam Dionysium Episcopos Presbyteri semper unum ex se electum in excelsiori gradu collâ—catum Episcopum nominabant quomodo si exercitus Imperatorem faciat aut Diaconi eligant de se quem industrium noverint Archidiaconum vocent That learned Doctor who would perswade us that the Presbyters did only make choice of the person but the ordination was performed by other Bishops would do well first to tell us who and where those Bishops in Aegypt were who did consecrate or ordain the Bishop of Alexandria after his election by the Presbyters especially while Aegypt remained but one Province under the Government of the Praefectus Augustalis Secondly how had this been in the least pertinent to Hieroms purpose to have made a particular instance in the Church of Alexandria for that which was common to all other Churches besides For the old Rule of the Canon-Law for Bishops was Electio clericorum est consensus principis petitio plebis Thirdly this election in Hierom must imply the conferring the power and authority whereby the Bishop acted For first the first setting up of his power is by Hierom attributed to this choice as appears by his words Quod autem postea unus electus est qui caeteris praeponeretur in schismatis remedium factum est ne unusquisque ad se trahens Christi Ecclesiam rumperet Whereby it is evident Hierom attributes the first original of that Exsors potestas as he calls it elsewhere in the Bishop above Presbyters not to any Apostolical institution but to the free choice of the Presbyters themselves which doth fully explain what he means by consuetudo Ecclesiae before spoken of viz. that which came up by a voluntary act of the Governours of Churches themselves Secondly it appears that by election he means conferring authority by the instances he brings to that purpose As the Roman Armies choosing their Emperours who had then no other power but what they received by the length of the sword and the Deacons choosing their Archdeacon who had no other power but what was meerly conâ—erred by the choice of the Coâ—ledge of Deacons To which we may add what Eutychius the Patriarch of Alexandria saith in
à Johanne conlocatum refert sicut Romanorum Clementem à Petro ordinatum edit Proinde utique caeterae exhibent quos ab Apostolis in Episcopatum constitutos Apostolici seminis traduces habeant A succession I grant is proved in Apostolical Churches by these words of Tertullian and this succession of persons and those persons Bishops too but then it is only said that these persons derived their office from the Apostles but nothing expressed what relation they had to the Church any more then is implyed in the general name of Episcopi nor what power they had over Presbyters only that there were such persons was sufficient to his purpose which was to prescribe against heretickes i. e. to Non-suit them or to give in general reasons why they were not to be proceeded with as to the particular debate of the things in question between them For praescribere in the civil Law whence Tertullian transplanted that word as many other into the Church is cum quis adversarium certis exceptionibus removet à lite contestandâ ita ut de summa rei neget agendum eamve causam ex juris praescripto judicandaÌ„ three sorts of these prescriptions Tertullian elsewere mentions Hoc exigere veritatem cui nemo praescribere potest non spatium temporum non patrocinia personarum non privilegium regionum Here he stands upon the first which is a prescription of time because the Doctrine which was contrary to that of the Hereticks was delivered by the Apostles and conveyed down by their successors which was requisite to be shewed in order to the making his prescription good Which he thus further explains Age jam qui voles curiositatem melius exercere in negotio salutis tuae percurre Ecclesias Apostolicas apud quas ipsae adhuc Cathedrae Apostolorum suis locis praesidentur apud quas ipsae authenticae eorum literae recitantur sonantes vocem praesentantes faciem uniuscujusque Proximè est tibi Achaia habes Corinthum Si non longe es à Macedonia habes Philippos habes Thessalonicenses Si potes in Asiam tendere habes Ephesum Sâ— autem Italiae adjaces habes Romam unde nobis quoque auctoritas praestò est What he spoke before of the persons he now speaks of the Churches themselves planted by the Apostles which by retaining the authentick Epistles of the Apostles sent to them did thereby sufficiently prescribe to all the novell opinions of the Hereticks We see then evidently that it is the Doctrine which they speak of as to succession and the persons no further then as they are the conveyers of that Doctrine either then it must be proved that a succession of some persons in Apostolical power is necessary for the conveying of this Doctrine to men or no argument at all can be inferred from hence for their succeeding the Apostles in their power because they are said to convey down the Apostolical Doctrine to succeeding ages Which is Austins meaning in that speech of his Radix Christianae societatis per sedes Apostolorum successiones Episcoporum certa per orbem propagatione diffunditur The root of Christian society i. e. the Doctrine of the Gospel is spread abroad the world through the channels of the Apostolical Sees and the continued successions of Bishops therein And yet if we may believe the same Austin Secundum honorum vocabula quae jam Ecclesiae usus obtinuit Episcopatus Presbyterio major est The difference between Episcopacy and Presbyterie rise from the custome of the Church attributing a name of greater honour to those it had set above others And as for Tertullian I believe neither party will stand to his judgement as to the original of Church power For he saith expresly Differentiâ—m inter ordinem plebem constituit Ecclesia auctoritas all the difference between Ministers and people comes from the Churches authority unless he mean something more by the following words honor per Ordinis concessum sanctificatus à Deo viz. that the honour which is received by ordination from the Bench of church-Church-Officers is sanctified by God i. e. by his appointment as well as blessing For otherwise I know not how to understand him But however we see here he makes the Government of the Church to lye in a Concessus ordinis which I know not otherwise to render than by a Bench of Presbyters because only they were said in ordinem cooptari who were made Presbyters and not those who were promoted to any higher degree in the Church By the way we may observe the original of the name of Holy Orders in the Church not as the Papists and others following them as though it noted any thing inherent by way of I know not what character in the person but because the persons ordained were thereby admitted in Ordinem among the number of church-Church-officers So there was Ordo Senatorum Ordo Equestris Ordo Decurionum and Ordo Sacerdotum among the Romans as in this Inscription ORDO SACERDOT DEI HERCULIS INVICTI From hence the use of the word came into the Church and thence Ordination ex vi vocis imports no more than solemn admission into this order of Presbyters and therefore it is observable that laying on of hands never made men Priests under the Law but only admitted them into publike Office So much for Tertullians Concessus ordinis which hath thus fâ—r drawn us out of our way but we now return And therefore Fourthly This personal suceession so much spoken of â—â— sometimes attributed to Presbyters even after the distinction came into use between Bishops and them And that even by those Authors who before had told us the succession was by Bishops as Irenaeus Cum autem ad eam iterum traditionem quâ— est ab Apostolis quâ— per successiones Presbyterorum in Ecclesiis custoditur provocamus eos qui adversantur traditioni dicent se non solum Presbyteris sed etiam Apostolis existentes sapientiores c. Here he attributes the keeping of the Pradition of Apostolical Doctrine to the succession of Presbyters which before he had done to Bishops And more fully afterwards Quapropter iis qui in Ecclesiâ sunt Presbyteris obaudire oportet his qui successionem habent ab Apostolis sicut ostendimus qui cum Episcopatus successione charisma veritatis certum secundum placitum patris acceperunt In this place he not only asserts the succession of Presbyters to the Apostles but likewise attributes the successio Episcopatus to these very Presbyters What strange confusion must this raise in any ones mind that seeks for a succession of Episcopal power above Presbyters from the Apostles by the Testimony of Irenaeus when he so plainly attributes both the succession to Presbyters and the Episcopacy too which he speaks of And in the next chapter adds Tales Presbyteros nutrit Ecclesia de quibus Propheta ait dabo principes tuos in pace Episcopos
non alio modo quam ejus veritate colligati tum vero nullo non Anathemate dignos fatemur si qui erunt qui eam non reverenter sumnia cum obedientia observent If Bishops would but submit themselves to Christ those that would not then submit themselves to them he thinks there is no Anathema of which they are not worthy Iacobus Heerbrandus Divinity Professor at Tubinge professeth it to be the most found constitution of Church-government wherein every Diocess had its Bishop and every Province an Arch-bishop Saluberrimum esset si singulae Provinciae suos Episcopos Episcopi suos Archiepiscopos haberent Hemingius acknowledgeth a disparity among Church Officers and accounts it a piece of barbarism to remove it Quanquam enim potestas omnium eadem est ministrorum quantum ad spiritualem jurisdictionem attiâ—et tamen dispares dignitatis ordines gradus sunt idque partim Jure divino partim Ecclesia approbatione But he qualifies what he had said of Ius divinum by his following words Ecclesia cui Dominus potestatem dedit in aedificationem ordinem ministrorum instituit pro commodo suo ut omnia sint rite ordinata ad instaurationem corporis Christi Hinc Ecclesia purior secuta tempora Apostolorum fecit alios Patriarchas alios Chorepiscopos alios Pastores Catechetas and afterwards Inter ministros agnoscit etiam Ecclesia nostra gradus dignitatis ordines pro diversitate donorum laborum magnitudine ac vocationum diversitate ac judicat Barbaricum esse de Ecclesia hunc ordinem tollere velle Three things he placeth a superiority of Dignity in Excellency of gifts Greatness of labours difference of calling And the truth is the two former ought to be the measure of dignity in the Church the Eminency of mens abilities and the abundance of their labours above others The necessity of a Superintendent or an Inspector over other Ministers is largely discovered by Zepper de Politeid Ecclesiastica who likewise agrees with the former Divines in his judgement of the first institution of Episcopacy Eadem officia in primitiva etiam Ecclesia post Apostolorum tempora in usu manserunt paucis quibusdam gradibus pro illorum temporum necessitate additis qui tamen nihil fere à mente D. Pauli verbi divini alienum habuerunt Whereby he both assert it to be in the power of the Church to add distinct degrees from what were in the Primitive Church and that such so added are no wayes repugnant to the Word of God According to this judgement of their Divines is the practice of the forraign Protestant Churches In Sweden there is one Arch-Bishop and seven Bishops and so in Denmark though not with so great authority in Holstein Pomeren Mecklenburgh Brunswicke Luneburgh Bremen Oldenburgh East Frieseland Hessen Saxony and all the upper part of Germany and the Protestant Imperial Cities Church government is in the hands of Super-intendents In the Palatinate they had Inspectores and Praepositi over which was the Ecclesiastical Consistory of three Clergy men and three Counsellors of State with their President and so they have their Praepositos in Wetteraw Hessen and Anhalt In Transylvania Polonia and Bohemia they have their Seniores enjoying the same power with anclent Bishops So that we see all these Reformed Churches and Divines although they acknowledge no such thing as a divine Right of Episcopacy but stiffely maintain Ieromes opinion of the primitive equality of Gospel Ministers yet they are so far from accounting it unlawfull to have some Church Officers acting in a higher degree above others that they themselves embrace it under different names and titles in order to the Peace Unity and Government of their several Churches Whereby they give us an evident demonstration that they looked not upon the primitive form to be immutable but that the orders and degrees of Ministers is only a Prudential thing and left in the liberty of every particular Church to be determined according to their tendency to preserve the peace and settlement of a Church We come in the last place to those who hold Episcopacy to be the Primitive Form yet not unalterably binding all Churches and places but that those Churches who are without it are truly constituted Churches and Ministers are lawfully ordained by meer Presbyters This is largely proved by Mr. Francis Mason in his excellent Defence of the Ordination of Ministers beyond the Seas to which I refer the Reader Only I shall shew out of him how the State of the Question about the Ius divinum of Episcopacy is formed First If by jure divino you mean that which is according to Scripture then the preheminence of Bishops is jure divino for it hath been already proved to be according to Scripture Secondly If by jure divino you mean the Ordinance of God in this sense also it may be said to be jure divino For it is an ordinance of the Apostles whereunto they were directed by Gods Spirit even by the Spirit of Prophecy and consequently the ordinance of God But if by jure divino you understand a Law and Commandment of God binding all Christian Churches universally perpetually unchangeably and with such absolute necessity that no other form of Regiment may in any case be admitted in this sense neither may we grant it nor yet can you prove it to be jure divino Whereby we see this learned and moderate man was far from unchurching all who wanted Bishops and absolutely declares that though he look on Episcopacy as an Apostolical Institution yet that no unalterable Divine Right is founded thereupon So before him the both learned and pious Bishop G. Downham explains himself concerning the Right of Episcopacy in these remarkable words Though in respect of the first Institution there is small difference between an Apostolical and Divine Ordinance because what was ordained by the Apostles proceeded from God in which sense and no other I do hold the Episcopal function to be a divine Ordinance I mean in respect of of the first Institution yet in respect of perpetuity difference by some is made between those things which be divini and those which be Apostolici juris the former in their understanding being perpetually generally and immutably necessary the latter not so So that the meaning of my defence plainly iâ— that the Episcopal Government hath this commendation above other forms of Ecclesiastical Government that in respect of the first Institution it is a divine Ordinance but that it should be such a divine Ordinance as should be generally perpetually immutably necessarily observed so as no other form of Government may in no case be admitted I did not take upon me to maintain With more to the same purpose in several places of that defence And from hence it is acknowledged by the stoutest Champions for Episcopacy before these late unhappy divisions that ordination performed by Presbyters in cases
Government All Power in Christs hands for Governing the Church What order Christ took in order thereto when he was in the World Calling the Apostles the first action respecting outward Government Three steps of the Apostles calling to be Disciples in their first mission in their plenary Commission Several things observed upon them pertinent to our purpose The Name and Office of Apostles cleared An equality among them proved during our Saviours life Peter not made Monarch of the Church by Christ. The pleas for it answered The Apostles Power over the seventy Disciples considered with the nature and quality of their Office Matth. 20. 25 26. largely discussed and explained It excludes all civil power but makes not all inequality in church-Church-Officers unlawful by the difference of Apostles and Pastors of Churches Matth. 18. 15 16 17. fully inquired into No evidence for any one Form from thence because equally applyed to several What the offences are there spoken of What the Church spoken to Not an Ecclesiastical Sanhedrin among the Iews nor yet the civil Sanhedrin as Erastus and his followers explain it nor a Consistorial or Congregational Church under the Gospel but onely a select company for ending private differences among Christians p. 200 CHAP. VI. THe next and chief thing pleaded for determining the Form of Church-Government is Apostolical practice two things inquired into concerning that what it was how far it binds The Apostles invested with the power and authority of governing the whole Church of Christ by their Commission Iohn 20. 21. Matth. 28. 19. What the Apostles did in order to Church-Government before Pentecost 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 explained No division of Provinces made among the Apostles then made appear by several Arguments Whether Paul and Peter were conâ—ined one to the circumcision the other to the uncircumcision and different Churches erected by them in the same Cities What course the Apostles took in setling the Government of particular Churches Largely proved that they observed the customs of the Iewish Synagogue The model of the Synagogue Government described Whether peculiar Ordination for the Synagogue Officers The service of the Synagogue set forth with the Officers belonging to it Grounds proving that the Apostles copied forth the the Synagogue modell Community of names and customs between Iews and Christians then Forming Churches out of Synagogues Whether any distinct Coetus of Jewish and Gentile Christians in the same Cities Correspondency of the Church with the Synagogue in the orders of publick Service In the custome of Ordination Ierom explained The power of Ordination in whom it lodgeth in the Christian Church The opinions of Ierom and Aerins considered The name of Presbyters and Bishops explained Three general considerations touching Apostolical practice 1. That we cannot attain to such a certainty of Apostolical practice as thereon to ground a divine right The uncertainty of Apostolical practice as to us fully discovered 1. From the equivalency of the names which should determine the controversie 2. In that the places in controversie may without incongruity be understood of the different forms 3. From the defectiveness ambiguity partiality and repugnancy of the Records of Antiquity which should inform us what the Apostolical practice was These fully discoursed upon The testimonies of Eusebius Irenaeus Tertullian Hilary Ierom and Ignatius discussed and these two last proved not to contradict each other Episcopacy owned as a humane Instituiion by the sense of the Church 2. Consideration That in all probability the Apostles did not observe any one fixed course of settling Church Government but settled it according to the several circumstances of time places and persons Several things premised for clearing it This Opinion though seemingly New is proved at large to be most consonant to antiquity by the several Testimonies of Clemens Rom. Alexandrinus Epiphanius whose Testimony is corrected explained and vindicated Hilary and divers others This Opinion of great consequence towards our present peace No foundation for Lay-Elders either in Scripture or Antiquity 3. Consideration Meer Apostoliâ—al practice if supposed founds not any divine right proved by a fourfold Argument The right of Tithes resolved upon the same Principles with that of Church Government Rites and Institutions Apostolical grown quite out of use among the several contending parties p. 230. CHAP. VII THE Churches Polity in the ages after the Apostles considered Evidences thence that no certain unalterable Form of Church-Government was delivered to them 1. Because Church Power did inlarge as the Churches did Whether any Metropolitan Churches established by the Apostles Seven Churches of Asia whether Metropolitical Philippi no Metropolis either in Civil or Ecclesiastical sense Several degrees of inlargement of Churches Churches first the Christians in whole Cities proved by several arguments the Eulogiae an evidence of it Churches extended into the neighbour territories by the preaching there of City Presbyters thence comes the subordination between them Churches by degrees inlarged to Diocesses from thence to Provinces The Original of Metropolitans and Patriarches 2. No certain Form used in all Churches Some Churches without Bishops Scots Goths Some with but one Bishop in their whole Countrey Scythian Aethiopian Churches how governed Many Cities without Bishops Diocesses much altered Bishops discontinued in several Churches for many years 3. Conforming Ecclesiastical Government to the civil in the extent of Diocesses The suburbicarian Churches what Bishops answerable to the civil Governours Churches power rises from the greatness of Cities 4. Validity of Ordination by Presbyters in places where Bishops were The case of Ischyras discussed instances given of Ordination by Presbyters not pronounced null 5. The Churches prudence in managing its affairs by the several Canons Provincial Synods Codex Canonum p. 346 CHAP. VIII AN Inquiry into the Iudgement of Reformed Divines concerning the unalterable Divine Right of particular Forms of Church-Government wherein it is made appear that the most emine nt Divines of the Reformation did never conceive any one Form necessary manifested by three arguments 1. From the judgment of those who make the Form of Church-Government mutable and to depend upon the wisdom of the Magistrate and Church This cleared to have been the judgement of most Divines of the Church of England since the Reformation Archbishop Cranmers judgements with others of the Reformation in Edward the Sixth time now first published from his authentick MS. The same ground of setling Episcopacy in Queen Elizabeth's time The judgement of Archbishop Whitgift Bishop Bridges Dr. Loe Mr. Hooker largely to that purpose in King Iames his time The Kings own Opinion Dr. Sutâ—â—ffe Since of Grakanthorp Mr. Hales Mr. Chillingworth The Testimony of Forraign Divines to the same purpose Chemnitius Zanchy French Divines Peter Moulin Fregevil Blondel Bochartus Amyraldus Other learned men Grotius Lord Bacon c. 2. Those who look upon equality as the Primitive Form yet judge Episcopacy lawful Augâ—stane Confession Melanchthon Articuli Smalcaldici Prince of Anhalt Hyperius Hemingiâ—s The practice of most
most eager Disputers of the controversie about Church-Government but how necessary they are to be proved before any form of Government be asserted so necessary that without it there can be no true Church any weak understanding may discern Secondly Supposing that Apostolicall practice be sufficiently attested by the following ages yet unless it be cleared from Scripture that it was Gods intention that the Apostles actions should continually bind the Church there can be nothing inferred that doth concern us in point of Conscience I say that though the matter of fact be evidenced by Posterity yet the obligatory nature of that fact must depend on Scripture and the Apostles intentions must not be built upon mens bare â—urmises nor upon after-practices especially if different from the constitution of things during the Apostles times And here those have somewhat whereon to exercise their understandings who assert an obligation upon men to any form of Government by vertue of an Apostolicall practice which must of necessity suppose a different state of things from what they were when the Apostles first established Governours over Churches As how those who were appointed Governours over particular Congregations by the Apostles come to be by vertue of that Ordination Governours over many Congregations of like nature and extent with that over which they were set And whether if it were the Apostles intention that such Governours should be alwayes in the Church is it not necessary that that intention of theirs be declared by a standing Law that such there must be for here matter of fact and practice can be no evidence when it is supposed to be different from the constitution of Churches afterward But of this more hereafter Thirdly Supposing any form of Government in its self necessary and that necessity not determined by a Law in the Word of God the Scripture is thereby apparently argued to be insufficient for its end for then deficit in necessariis some things are necessary for the Church of God which the Scripture is wholly silent in I say not that every thing about Church-Government must be written in Scripture but supposing any one form necessary it must be there commanded or the Scripture is an imperfect Rule which contains not all things necessary by way of Precept For there can be no other necessity universall but either by way of means to an end or by way of Divine Command I know none will say that any particular form of Government is necessary absolutely by way of means to an end for certainly supposing no obligation from Scripture Government by an equality of power in the Officers of the Church or by superiority of one order above another are indifferent in order to the generall ends of Government and one not more necessary then the other If any one form then be necessary it must be by that of command and if there be a command universally binding whose footsteps cannot be traced in the Word of God how can the Scriptures be a perfect Rule if it fails in determining binding Laws So that we must if we own the Scriptures sufficiency as a binding Rule appeal to that about any thing pleaded as necessary by vertue of any Divine command and if such a Law cannot be met with in Scripture which determines the case in hand one way or other by way of necessary obligation I have ground to look upon that which is thus left undetermined by Gods positive Laws to be a matter of Christian-liberty and that neither part is to be looked upon as necessary for the Church of God as exclusive of the other This I suppose is the case as to particular forms of Government in the Church of God but that I may not only suppose but prove it I now come to the stating of the Question which if ever necessary to be done any where it is in the Controversie of Church-Government the most of mens heats in this matter arising from want of right understanding the thing in question between them In the stating the Question I shall proceed by degrees and shew how far we acknowledge any thing belonging to Government in the Church to be of an unalterable Divine Right First That there must be a form of Government in the Church of God is necessary by vertue not only of that Law of Nature which provides for the preservation of Societies but likewise by vertue of that Divine Law which takes care for the Churches preservation in peace and unity I engage not here in the Controversie Whether a particular Congregation be the first Political Church or no it sufficeth for my purpose that there are other Churches besides particular Congregations I mean not only the Catholick visible Church which is the first not only in order of consideration but nature too as a totum Integrale before the similar parts of it but in respect of all other accidentall modifications of Churches from the severall wayes of their combination together They who define a Church by stated worshipping Congregations do handsomely beg the thing they desire by placing that in their definition of a Church which is the thing in question which is Whether there be no other Church but such particular Congregations Which is as if one should go about to prove that there were no civil Societies but in particular Corporations and to prove it should give such a definition of civill Society that it is A company of men joyned together in a Corporation for the preservation of their Rights and Priviledges under the Governours of such a place It must be first proved that no other company of men can be call'd a civill Society besides a Corporation and so that no other society of men joyning together in the profession of the true Religion can be call'd a Church but such as joyn in particular Congregations To which purpose it is very observable That particular Congregations are not de primariâ intentione divinâ for if the whole world could joyn together in the publike Worship of God no doubt that would be most properly a Church but particular Congregations are only accidental in reference to Gods intention of having a Church because of the impossibility of all mens joyning together for the convenient distribution of Church-priviledges and administration of Gospel-Ordinances For it is evident that the Priviledges and Ordinances do immediately and primarily belong to the Catholick visible Church in which Christ to that end hath set Officers as the Apostle clearly expresseth 1 Corinth 12. 28. for how Apostles should be set as Officers over particular Congregations whose Commission extended to the whole World is I think somewhat hard to understand but for the more convenient participation of Priviledges and Ordinances particular Congregations are necessary This will be best illustrated by Examples We read that Esther 1. 3. King Ahashuerus made a feast for all his Princes and Servants Doubtlesse the King did equally respect them all as a Body in the feasting of them
with the dispencers of the Word as appears from the titles of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Governours Rulers Pastors all which necessarily imply a Governing power which having been largely proved by others and yeelded by me I pass over 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 superiority nor the unlawfulnesse can be proved thence ANd now I come to the main Subject of the present Controversie which is acknowledging a form of Government necessary and the Governours of the Church perpetuall Whether the particular form whereby the Church must be governed be determined by any positive Law of God which unalterably binds all Christians to the observation of it By Church here I mean not a particular Congregation but such a Society which comprehends in it many of these lesser Congregations united together in one body under a form of Government The forms of Government in controversie the Question being thus stated are only these two the particular officers of several Churches acting in an equality of Power which are commonly called a Colledge of Presbyters or a Superiour Order above the standing Ministry having the Power of Jurisdiction and Ordination belonging to it by vertue of a Divine Institution Which order is by an Antonomasia called Episcopacy The Question now is not which of these two doth come the nearest to Apostolical practice and the first Institution which hath hitherto been the controversie so hotly debated among us but whether either of these two forms be so setled by a jus divinum that is be so determined by a positive Law of God that all the Churches of Christ are bound to observe that one form so determined without variation from it or whether Christ hath not in setling of his Church provided there be some form of Government and a setled Ministry for the exercise of it left it to the prudence of every particular Church consisting of many Congregations to agree upon its own form which it judgdeth most conducing to the end of Government in that particular Church 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Here now we fix our selves and the first thing we do is to agree upon our wayes of resolution of this Question whereby to come to an end of this debate And the most probable way to come to an issue in it is to go through all the wayes whereon men do fix an unalterable divine Right and to see whether any of these do evince a divine Right setled upon a positive Law or no for one of these forms The pleas then for such a divine Right are these Either some formal Law standing in force under the Gospel or some plain Institution of a New Law by Christ in forming his Church or the obligatory nature of Apostolical practice or the general sense of the Primitive Church to which we shall add by way of Appendix the Judgement of the chief Divines and Churches since the Reformation if we go happily through these we may content our selves with having obtained the thing we aim at The first inquiry then is Whether any formal Law of God concerning a form of government for his Church either by persons acting in an equality of Power or subordination of one Order to another under the Gospel doth remain in force or no binding Christians to the observing of it The Reason why I begin with this is because I observe the Disputants on both sides make use of the Pattern under the Law to establish their form by Those who are for Superiority of one Order above another in the government of the Church derive commonly their first argument from the Pattern under the Law Those who are for an equality of Power in the persons acting in government yet being for a subordination of Courts they bring their first argument for that from the Jewish Pattern So that these latter are bound by their own argument though used in another case to be ruled in this Controversie by the Jewish Pattern For why should it be more obligatory as to subordination of Courts then as to the superiority of Orders If it holds in one case it must in the other And if there be such a Law for Superiority standing unrepealed there needs no New Law to inforce it under the Gospel We shall therefore first enquire what foundation there is for either form in that Pattern and how far the argument drawn from thence is obligatory to us now For the practice then in the Jewish Church That there was no universal equality in the Tribe of Levi which God singled out from the rest for his own service is obvious in Scripture For there we find Priests above the Levites the family of Aaron being chosen out from the other families of Cohath one of the three sons of Levi to be employed in a nearer attendance upon Gods Service then any of the other families And it must be acknowledged that among both Priests and Levites there was a Superiority For God placed Eleazar over the Priests Elizaphan over the Cohathites Eliasaph over the Gershonites Zuriel over the Merarites and these are called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Rulers over their several families for it is said of every one of them 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 he was Ruler over the house of his Father Neither were these equal for over Eliasaph and Zuriel God placed Ithamar over Elisaphan and his own family God set Eleazar who by reason of his authority over all the rest is called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Ruler of the Rulers of Levi and besides these there were under these Rulers 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the chief Fathers of the several distinct families as they are called Exodus 6. 25. Thus we briefly see the subordination that there was in the Tribe of Levi the Levites first over them the heads of the Families over them the Rulers or the chief of the heads over them Ithamar over both Priests and Levites Eleazar Over all Aaron the High Priest There being then so manifest an inequality among them proceed we to shew how obligatory this is under the Gospel For that end it will be necessary to consider whether this imparity and Superiority were peculiarly appointed by God for the Ecclesiastical government of the Tribe of Levi as it consisted of persons to be employed in the service of God or it was only such an inequality and Superiority as was in any other Tribe If only common with other Tribes nothing can be inferred from thence peculiar to Ecclesiasticall government under the Gospel any more then from the government of other Tribes to the same kind of government in all civil States We must then take notice that Levi was a particular distinct Tribe of it self and
so not in subordination to any other Tribe for they had the heads of their Fathers as well as others Exodus 6. 25. and although when they were setled in Canaan their habitations were intermixt with other Tribes in their forty eight Cities yet they were not under the government of those Tribes among whom they lived but preserved their authority and government intire among themselves And therefore it was necessary there should be the same form of government among them which there was among the rest The whole body of the Nation then was divided into thirteen Tribes these Tribes into their several families some say seventy which they called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 these Families were divided into so many Housholds 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 their Housholds into persons 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 over the several persons were the several Masters of Families over the several Housholds were the Captains of 1000 and 100 50 10. Over the Families I suppose were the heads of the Fathers And over the thirteen Tribes were the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the chief Fathers of the Tribes of the Children of Israel Numb 32. 28. and we have the names of them set down Numb 34. 17 c. So that hitherto we find nothing peculiar to this Tribe nor proper to it as employed in the service of God For their several Families had their several Heads and Eleazar over them as chief of the Tribe And so we find throughout Numbers 2. all the Heads of the several Tribes are named and appointed by God as Eleazar was The only things then which seem proper to this Tribe were the superiority of the Priests over the Levites in the service of God and the supereminent power of the High Priest as the type of Christ. So that nothing can be inferred from the order under the Law to that under the Gospel but from one of these two And from the first there can be nothing deduced but this that as there was a superiority of Officers under the Law so likewise should there be under the Gospel which is granted by all in the superiority of Priests over Deacons to whom these two answer in the Church of God in the judgement of those who contend for a higher order by divine Institution above Presbyters And withall we must consider that there was under that order no power of jurisdiction invested in the Priests over the Levites but that was in the heads of the Families and ordination there could not be because their office descended by succession in their several Families Those who would argue from Aarons power must either bring too little or too much from thence Too little if we consider his office was typical and ceremonial and as High Priest had more immediate respect to God then men Heb. 5. 1. and therefore Eleazar was appointed over the several Families during Aarons life-time and under Eleazar his son Phinehas Too much If a necessity be urged for the continuance of the same authority in the Church of God which is the argument of the Papists deriving the Popes Supremacy from thence Which was acutely done by Pope Innocentius the third the Father of the Lateran Council who proved that the Pope may exercise temporall jurisdiction from that place in Deuteronomy 17. 8. and that by this reason because Deuteronomy did imply the second Law and therefore what was there written in Novo Testamento debet observari must be observed under the Gospel which according to them is a new Law All that can be inferred then from the Jewish pattern cannot amount to any obligation upon Christians it being at the best but a judicial Law and therefore binds us not up as a positive Law but only declares the equity of the thing in use then I conclude then That the Jewish pattern is no standing Law for Church-Government now either in its common or peculiar form of Government but because there was some superiority of order then and subordination of some persons to others under that government that such a superiority and subordination is no wayes unlawfull under the Gospel for that would destroy the equity of the Law And though the form of Government was the same with that of other Tribes yet we see God did not bind them to an equality because they were for his immediate service but continued the same way as in other Tribes thence I inferr that as there is no necessary obligation upon Christians to continue that form under the Jews because their Laws do not bind us now so neither is there any repugnancy to this Law in such a subordination but it is very agreeable with the equity of it it being instituted for peace and order and therefore ought not to be condemned for Antichristian The Jewish pattern then of Government neither makes equality unlawfull because their Laws do not oblige now nor doth it make superiority unlawfull because it was practised then So that notwithstanding the Jewish pattern the Church of Christ is left to its own liberty for the choyce of its form of Government whether by an equality of power in some persons or superiority and subordination of one order to another 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 proved that Christ did not institute any form of Church Government because no such Law for it as Moses gave and we have nothing but general Rules which are applyable to several forms of Government The office of Timothy and Titus what it proves in order to this question the lawfulnesse of Episcopacy shewn thence but not the necessity A particular form how far necessary as Christ was the Governour of his Church the similitudes the Church is set out by prove not the thing in question Nor the difference of 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 restrain Episcoâ—acy thence proved lawfull the argument from the Scriptures perfection answered VVE come then from the Type to the Antitype from the Rod of Aaron to the Root of Iessâ— from the Pattern of the Jewish Church to the Founder of the Christian To see whether our Lord Saviour hath determined this controversie or any one form of government for his Church by any universally binding act or Law of his And here it is pleaded more hotly by many that Christ must do it than that he hath done it And therefore I shall first examine the pretences of the necessity of Christs determining the particular form and then the arguments that are brought that he hath done it The main pleas that there must be a perfect form of Church-government laid down by Christ for the Church of God are from the
exercise of this power is not any unlawfulnesse in the thing but the preserving of order and conveniency in the Church of God This being premised I say Secondly That the officers of the Church may in a peculiar manner attribute a larger and more extensive power to some particular persons for the more convenient exercise of their common power We have seen already that their power extends to the care of the Churches in common that the restraint of this power is a matter of order and decency in the Church of God Now in matters of common concernment without all question it is not unlawful when the Church judgeth it most for Edification to grant to some the executive part of that power which is Originally and Fundamentally common to them all For our better understanding of this we must consider a twofold power belonging to Church-Officers a power of Order and a power of jurisdiction for in every Presbyter there are some things inseparably joyned to his Function and belonging to every one in his personal capacity both in actu primo and in actu secundo both as to the right and power to do it and the exercise and execution of that power such are preaching the Word visiting the sick administring Sacraments c. But there are other things which every Presbyter hath an aptitude and a jus to in actu primo but the limitation and exercise of that power doth belong to the Church in common and belong not to any one personally but by a further power of choice or delegation to it such is the power of visiting Churches taking care that particular Pastors discharge their duty such is the power of ordination and Church censures and making Rules for decency in the Church this is that we call the power of jurisdiction Now this latter power though it belongs habitually and in actu primo to every Presbyter yet being about matters of publike and common concernment some further Authority in a Church constituted is necessary besides the power of order and when this power either by consent of the Pastors of the Church or by the appointment of a Christian Magistrate or both is devolved to some particular persons though quoad aptitudinem the power remain in every Presbyter yet quoad executionem it belongs to those who are so appointed And therefore Camero determins that Ordinatio non fit à pastore quatenus pastor est sed quatenus ad tempus singularem authoritatem obtinet i. e. That Ordination doth not belong to the Power of Order but to the Power of Jurisdiction and therefore is subject to Positive restraints by Prudential Determinations By this we may understand how lawfull the Exercise of an Episcopal Power may be in the Church of God supposing an equality in all church-Church-Officers as to the Power of Order And how incongruously they speak who supposing an equality in the Presbyters of Churches at first do cry out that the Church takes upon her the Office of Christ if she delegates any to a more peculiar Exercise of the power of Jurisdiction The last thing pleaded why an immutable Form of Church-Government must be laid down in Scripture is from the perfection and sufficiency of the Scriptures because otherwise the Scriptures would be condemned of imperfection But this will receive an easie dispatch For First The Controversie about the perfection of the Scriptures is not concerning an essential or integral Perfection but a perfection ratione finis effectuum in order to its end now the end of it is to be an adaequate Rule of Faith and Manners and sufficient to bring men to salvation which it is sufficiently acknowledged to be if all things necessary to be believed or practised be contained in the Word of God now that which we assert not to be fully laid down in Scripture is not pleaded to be any wayes necessary nor to be a matter of Faith but something left to the Churches Liberty but here it is said by some that this is adding to the Law of God which destroyes the Scriptures perfection therefore I answer Secondly Whatever is done with an Opinion of the necessity of doing it destroyes the Scriptures perfection if it be not contained in it for that were to make it an imperfect Rule and in this sense every additio perficiens is additio corrumpens because it takes away from the perfection of the Rule which it is added to and thus Popish Traditions are destructive of the Scriptures sufficiency But the doing of any thing not positively determined in Scripture not looking upon it as a thing we are bound to do from the necessity of the thing and observing the general Rules of Scripture in the doing it is far from destroying the perfection or sufficiency of the Word of God Thirdly All essentials of Church-Government are contained clearly in Scripture The essentials of Church-Government are such as are necessary to the preservation of such a Society as the Church is Now all these things have been not only granted but proved to be contained in Scripture but whatever is not so necessary in its self can only become necessary by vertue of Gods express command and what is not so commanded is accidental and circumstantial and a matter of Christian liberty and such we assert the Form of Church-Government to be It is not our work to enquire why God hath determined some things that might seem more circumstantial than this and left other things at liberty but whether God hath determined these things or no. Which determination being once cleared makes the thing so commanded necessary as to our observance of it but if no such thing be made appear the thing remains a matter of liberty and so the Scriptures perfection as to necessaries in order to Salvation is no wayes impeached by it So much now for the necessity of Christs determining the particular form of Government We now proceed to the consideration of Christs Actions whether by them the form of Church-Government is determined or no CHAP. V. Whether any of Christs Actions have determined the Form of Government All Power in Christs hands for Governing his Church What order Christ took in order thereto when he was in the World Calling Apostles the first action respecting outward Government The Name and Office of Apostles cleared An equality among them proved during our Saviours life Peter not made Monarch of the Church by Christ. The Apostles Power over the seventy Disciples considered with the nature and quality of their Office Matth. 20. 25 26 27. largely discussed and explained It makes not all inequality in Church Officers unlawful by the difference of Apostles and Pastors of Churches Matth. 18. 15. How far that determins the Form of Church-Government No evidence of any exact Order for Church-Government from thence Matth. 16. 15 16 17 18. considered how far that concerns the Government of the Church HAving considered and answered the Arguments which are brought why Christ must
his Origines Ecclesiae Alexandrinae published in Arabick by our moâ—â— learned Selden who expresly affirms that the twelve Presbyters constituted by Mark upon the vacancy of the See did choose out of their number one to be head over the rest and the other eleven did lay their hands upon him and blessed him and made him Patriarch Neither is the authority of Eutychius so much to be sleighted in this case coming so near to Hierom as he doth who doubtless had he told us that Mark and Anianus c. did all there without any Presbyters might have had the good fortune to have been quoted with as much frequency and authority as the Anonymous Author of the martyrdome of Timothy in Photius who there unhappily follows the story of the seven sleepers or the Author of the Apostolical Constitutions whose credit is everlastingly blasted by the excellent Mr. Duille De Pseudepigraphis Apostolorum so much doth mens interestâ—tend to the inhancing or abating the esteem and credit both of the dead and the living By these we see that where no positive restraints from consent and choice for the unity and peace of the Church have restrained mens liberty as to their external exercise of the power of order or jurisdiction every one being himself advanced into the authority of a Church Governour hath an internal power of conferring the same upon persons fit for it To which purpose the laying on of the hands of the Presbytery is no wayes impertinently alledged although we suppose St. Paul to concur in the action as it is most probable he did because if the Presbytery had nothing to do in the ordination to what purpose were their hands laid upon him Was it only to be witnesses of the fact or to signifie their consent both those might have been done without their use of that ceremony which will scarce be instanced in to be done by any but such as had power to confer what was signified by that ceremony We come therefore to the second period or state of the Church when the former liberty was restrained by some act of the Church it self for preventing the inconveniences which might follow the too common use of the former liberty of ordinations So Antonius de Rosellis fully expresseth my meaning in this Quilibet Presbyter Presbyteri ordinabant indiscretè schismata oriebantur Every Presbyter and Presbyters did ordain indifferently and thence arose schisms thence the liberty was restrained and reserved peculiarly to some persons who did act in the several Presbyteries as the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Prince of the Sanhedrin without whose presence no ordination by the Church was to be looked on as regular The main controversie is when this restraint began and by whose act whether by any act of the Apostles or only by the prudence of the Church its self as it was with the Sanhedrin But in order to our peace I see no such necessity of deciding it both parties granting that in the Church such a restraint was laid upon the liberty of ordaining Presbyters and the exercise of that power may be restrained still granting it to be radically and intrinsically in them So that this controversie is not such as should divide the Church For those that are for ordinations only by a Superiour order in the Church acknowledging a radical power for ordination in Presbyters which may be exercised in case of necessity do thereby make it evident that none who grant that do think that any positive Law of God hath forbidden Presbyters the power of ordination for then it must be wholly unlawful and so in case of necessity it cannot be valid Which Doctrine I dare with some confidence assert to be a stranger to our Church of England as shall be largely made appear afterwards On the other side those who hold ordinations by Presbyters lawful do not therefore hold them necessary but it being a matter of liberty and not of necessity Christ having no where said that none but Presbyters shall ordain this power then may be restrained by those who have the care of the Churches Peace and matters of liberty being restrained ought to be submitted to in order to the Churches Peace And therefore some have well observed the difference between the opinions of Hierom and Aerius For as to the matter it self I believe upon the strictest enquiry Medina's judgement will prove true that Hierom Austin Ambrose Sedulius Primasius Chrysostome Theodores Theophylact were all of Aerius his judgement as to the Identity of both name and order of Bishops and Presbyters in the Primitive Church but here lay the difference Aerius from hence proceeded to separation from Bishops and their Churches because they were Bishops And Blondell well observes that the main ground why Aerius was condemned was for unnecessary separation from the Church of Sebastia and those Bishops too who agreed with him in other things as Eustathius the Bishop did Whereas had his meer opinion about Bishops been the ground of his being condemned there can be no reason assigned why this heresie if it were then thought so was not mentioned either by Socrates Theodoret Sozomen or Evagrius before whose time he lived when yet they mention the Eustathiani who were co-temporaries with him But for Epiphanius and Augustine who have listed him in the roul of Hereticks it either was for the other heretical opinions maintained by him or they took the name Heretick as it is evident they often did for one who upon a matter of different opinion from the present sense of the Church did proceed to make separation from the Unity of the Catholick Church which I take to be the truest account of the reputed Heresie of Aerius For otherwise it is likely that Ierome who maintained so great correspondency and familiarity with Epiphanius and thereby could not but know what was the cause why Aerius was condemned for Heresie should himself run into the same Heresie and endeavour not only to assert it but to avouch and maintain it against the Judgement of the whole Church Ierome therefore was not ranked with Aerius because though he held the same opinion as to Bishops and Presbyters yet he was far from the consequence of Aerius that therefore all Bishops were to be separated from nay he was so far from thinking it necessary to cause a schism in the Church by separating from Bishops that his opinion is clear that the first institution of them was for preventing schisms and therefore for peace and unity he thought their institution very useful in the Church of God And among all those fifteen testimonies produced by a learned Writer ouâ— of Ierome for the superiority of Bishopâ— above Presbyters I cannot find one that doth found it upon any Divine Right but only upon the conveniency of such an order for the peace and unity of the Church of God Which is his meaning in that place most produced to this purpose Ecclesiae salus
it transplanted into the Church There are yet some things remaining as to Ordination wherein the Church did imitate the Synagogue which will admit of a quick dispatch as the number of the persons which under the Synagogue were alwaies to be at least three This being a fundamental constitution among the Jews as appears by their writings 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Ordination of Presbyters by laying on of hands must be done by three at the least To the same purpose Maimonides 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 They did not ordain any by imposition of hands into a power of judicature without the number of three Which number Peter Galatinus and Postellus conceive necessary to be all ordained themselves but Master Selden thinks it was sufficient if there were but one of that number so ordained who was to be as principal in the action whose opinion is favoured by Maimonides who adds to the words last cited out of him Of which Three one at the least must be ordained himself Let us now see the Parallel in the Church of God The first solemn Ordination of Elders under the Gospel which some think to be set down as a Pattern for the Church to follow is that we read of Acts 13. 1 2 3. Which was performed by three for we read in the first verse that there were in the Church at Antioch five Prophets and Teachers Barnabas Simeon Lucius Manaen and Saul of these five the Holy-Ghost said that two must be separated for the work whereto God had called them which were Barnabas and Saul there remain onely the other three Simeon Lucius and Manaen to lay their hands on them and ordain them to their work Accordingly those who tell us that Iames was ordained Bishop of Ierusalem do mention the three Apostles who concurred in the ordaining of him But most remarkable for this purpose is the Canon of the Nicene Council wherein this number is set down as the regular number for the Ordination of Bishops without which it was not accounted Canonical The words are these 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. e. The Ordination of a Bishop should if possible be performed by all the Bishops of the Province which if it cannot easily be done either through some urgent necessity or the tediousness of the way three Bishops at least must be there for the doing it which may be sufficient for the Ordination if those that are absent do express their consent and by Letters approve of the doing of it To the same purpose Theodoret 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Canons injoyn all the Bishops of the Province to be present at the Ordination of one and forbid the Ordination of any without three being present at it Thus we see how the Constitution of the Synagogue was exactly observed in the Church as to the number of the persons concurring to a regular Ordination The last thing as to Ordination bearing Analogy to the Synagogue is the effect of this Ordination upon the person It was the Custom of the Jews to speak of all that were legally Ordained among them 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and the Divine Presence or Schecinah rested upon them which sometimes they called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Holy Spirit supposed to be in a peculiar manner present after this solemn Separation of them from others in the world and Dedication of them unto God Answerable to this may that of our Saviour be when he gives his Apostles authority to preach the Gospel he doth it in that Form of words Receive ye the Holy Ghost and then gives them the power of binding and loosing usually conveyed in the Jewish Ordinations Whose sins ye remit they are remitted and whose sins ye retain they are retained So that as under the Law they by their Ordination received a moral Faculty or Right to exercise that power they were Ordained to so under the Gospel all who are Ordained according to Gospel Rules have a right authority and power conveyed thereby for the dispensing of the Word and Sacraments Which right and power must not be conceived to be an internal indelible Character as the Papists groundlesly conceive but a moral legal Right according to the Lawes of Christ because the persons Ordaining do not act in it in a natural but a moral Capacity and so the effect must be moral and not physical which they must suppose it to be who make it a Character and that indelible Thus much may serve to clear how Ordination in all its circumstances was derived from the Jewish Synagogue The other thing remaining to be spoken to as to the correspondence of the Church with the Synagogue in its constitution is what order the Apostles did settle in the several Churches of their Plantation for the Ruling and Ordering the Affairs of them Before I come to speak so much to it as will be pertinent to our present purpose and design we may take notice of the same name for Church-Rulers under the Gospel which there was under the Synagogue viz. that of Presbyters The name Presbyter as the Hebr. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 though it Originally import Age yet by way of connotation it hath been looked on as a name both of Dignity and Power Because Wisdome was supposed to dwell with a multitude of years therefore persons of age and experience were commonly chosen to places of honour and trust and thence the name importing age doth likewise cary dignity along with it Thence we read in the time of Moses how often the Elders were gathered together Thence Eliezer is called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Gen. 24. 2. which the Greek renders 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Seignior Domo the chief Officer in his house and so we read Gen. 50. 6. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Elders of the Land of Egypt So the Elders of Mâ—dian the Elders of Israel the Elders of the Cities so among the Greeks 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for their Council of State and among the Latines Senatus and our Saxon Aldermen in all importing both age and honour and power together But among the Jewes in the times of the Apostles it is most evident that the name 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 imported not only dignity but power the Presbyters among the Jewes having a power both of judgeing and teaching given them by their Semicha or Ordination Now under the Gospel the Apostles retaining the name and the manner of Ordination but not conferring that judiciary power by it which was in use among the Jewes to shew the difference between the Law and the Gospel it was requisite some other name should be given to the Governours of the Church which should qualifie the importance of the word Presbyters to a sense proper to a Gospel State Which was the Original of giving the name 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to the Governours of the Church under the Gospel A name importing Duty more then Honour and not a
as yet strangers to the Covenant of promise and aliens from the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 society of Christians And here I conceive a mistake of some men lies when they think the Apostles respected onely the Ruling of those which were already converted for though this were one part of their work yet they had an eye to the main Design then on foot the subjecting the World to the Obedience of Faith in order to which it was necessity in places of great resort and extent to place not onely such as might be sufficient to superintend the Affairs of the Church but such as might lay out themselves the most in Preaching the Gospel in order to converting others Haveing laid down these things by way of premisal we will see what advantage we can make of them in order to our purpose First then I say that in Churches consisting of a small number of Believers where there was no great probability of a large increase afterwards One single Pastour With Deacons under him were onely constituted by the Apostles for the ruling of those Churches Where the work was not so great but a Pastour and Deacons might do it what need was there of having more and in the great scarcity of fit Persons for setled Rulers then and the great multitude and necessity of unfixed Officers for preaching the Gospel abroad many persons fit for that work could not be spared to be constantly Resident upon a place Now that in some places at first there were none placed but onely a Pastour and Deacons I shall confirm by these following Testimonies The first is that of Clement in his Epistle 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Apostles therefore preaching abroad through Countreys and Cities ordained the First-fruits of such as believed having proved them by the Spirit to be Bishops and Deacons for them that should afterwards believe Whether by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 we understand Villages or Regions is not material for it is certain here the Author takes it as distinct from Cities and there is nothing I grant expressed where the Apostles did place Bishops and Deacons exclusive of other places i. e. whether onely in Cities or Countreys but it is evident by this that where-ever they planted Churches they ordained Bishops and Deacons whether those Churches were in the City or Countrey And here we find no other Officers setled in those Churches but Bishops and Deacons And that there were no more in those Churches then he speaks of appears from his Designe of paralleling the church-Church-Officers in the Gospel to those under the Law and therefore it was here necessary to enumerate all that were then in the Churches The main controversie is what these Bishops were whether many in one place or onely one and if but one whether a Bishop in the modern Sense or no. For the first here is nothing implying any necessity of having more then one in a place which will further be made appear by and by out of other Testimonies which will help to explain this As for the other thing we must distinguish of the Notion of a Bishop For he is either such a one as hath none over him in the Church or he is such a one as hath a power over Presbyters acting under him and by authority derived from him If we take it in the first Sense so every Pastor of a Church having none exercising jurisdiction over him is a Bishop and so every such single Pastor in the Churches of the Primitive times was a Bishop in this Sense as every Master of a Family before Societies for Government were introduced might be called a King because he had none above him to command him but if we take a Bishop in the more proper Sense for one that hath power over Presbyters and People such a one these single Pastors were not could not be For it is supposed that these were onely single Pastors But then it is said that after other Presbyters were appointed then these single Pastors were properly Bishops but to that I answer First they could not be proper Bishops by vertue of their first Constitution for then they had no power over any Presbyters but onely over the Deacons and People and therefore it would be well worth considering how a power of jurisdiction over Presbyters can be derived from those single Pastors of Churches that had no Presbyters joyned with them It must be then clearly and evidently proved that it was the Apostles intention that these single Pastors should have the power over Presbyters when the Churches necessity did require their help which intention must be manifested and declared by some manifestation of it as a Law of Christ or nothing can thence be deduced of perpetual concernment to the Church of Christ. Secondly either they were Bishops before or onely after the appointment of Presbyters if before then a Bishop and a Presbyter having no Bishop over him are all one if after onely then it was by his communicating power to Presbyters to be such or their choice which made him their Bishop if the first then Presbyters quoad ordinem are onely a humane institution it being acknowledged that no Evidence can be brought from Scripture for them and for any Act of the Apostles not recorded in Scripture for the constituting of them it must goe among unwritten Traditions and if that be a Law still binding the Church then there are such which occurre not in the Word of GOD and so that must be an imperfect coppy of Divine Lawes If he were made Bishop by an Act of the Presbyters then Presbyters have power to make a Bishop and so Episcopacy is an humane institution depending upon the voluntary Act of Presbyters But the clearest Evidence for one single Pastour with Deacons in some Churches at the beginning of Christianity is that of Epiphanius which though somewhat large I shall recite because if I mistake not the curtailing of this Testimony hath made it speak otherwise then ever Epiphanius meant 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. The Sense of Epiphanius is very intricate and obscure we â—hall endeavour to explain it He is giving Aerius an account why Paul in his Epistle to Timothy mentions onely Bishops and Deacons and passeth over Presbyters His account is this first he chaâ—geth Aerius with ignorance of the Series of History which he calls 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and the profound and ancient Records the Church wherein it is expressed that upon the first Preaching of the Gospel the Apostle writ according to the present state of things Where Bishops were not yet appointed for so certainly it should be read 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for then he must contradict himself the Apostle writes to Bishops and Deacons for the Apostles could not settle all things at first for there was a necessity of Presbyters and Deacons for by these two Orders all Ecclesiastical Offices might be performed for where so I read it 〈◊〉
propounded method to examine what light the practice of the Church in the ages succeeding the Apostles will cast upon the controversie we are upon For although according to the principles established and â—aid down by us there can be nothing setled as an universal Law for the Church but what we find in Scriptures yet because the general practice of the Church is conceived to be of â—o great use for understanding what the Apostles intentions as well as actions were we shall chearfully pass over this Rubicon because not with an intent to increase divisions but to find out some further evidence of a way to compose them Our Inquiry then is Whether the primitive Church did conceive its self obliged to observe unalterably one individual form of Government as delivered down to them either by a Law of Christ or an universal constitution of the Apostles or else did only settle and order things for Church-government according as it judged them tend most to the peace and settlement of the Church without any antecedent obligation as necessarily binding to observe onely one course This latter I shall endeavour to make out to have been the onely Rule and Law which the primitive Church observed as to Church-government viz. the tendency of its constitutions to the peace and unity of the Church and not any binding Law or practice of Christ or his Apostles For the demonstrating of which I have made choyce of such arguments as most immediately teâ—d to the proving of it For If the power of the Church and its officers did encrease meerly from the inlargement of the bounds of Churches if no one certain form were observed in all Churches but great varieties as to Officers and Diocesses if the course used in setling the power of the chief Officers of the Church was from agreement with the civil government if notwithstanding the superiority of Bishops the ordination of Presbyters was owned as valid if in all other things concernning the Churches Polity the Churches prudence was looked on as a sufficient ground to establish things then we may with reason conciude that nothing can be inferred from the practice of the primitive Church Demonstrative of any one fixed form of Church-government delivered from the Apostles â—o them Having thus by a lâ—ght 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 drawn ouâ— the several lines of the pourtraiture of the Polity of the antient Church we now proceed to fill them up though not with that life which it deserves yet so far as the model of this Discourse will permit Our first argument then is from the rise of the extent of the power of Church-Governours which I assert not to have been from any order of the Apostles but from the gradual encrease of the Churches committed to their charge This will be best done by the observation of the growth of Churches and how proportionably the power of the Governours did increase with it As to that there â—re four observable steps or periods as so many ages of growth in the primitive Churches First when Churches and Cities were of the same extent Secondly when Churches took in the adjoyning Terriâ—ories with the Villages belonging to the Cities Thirdly when several Cities with their Villages did associate for Church-Government in the same Province Fourthly when several provinces did associate for Government in the Roman Empire Of these in their order The first period of Church government observable in the primitive Church was when Churches were the same with Christians in whole Cities For the clearing of this I shall first shew that the primitive constitution of Churches was in a society of Christians in the same City Secondly I shall consider the form and manner of Government then observed among them Thirdly consider what relation the several Churches in Cities had to one another First That the Primitive Churches were Christians of whole Cities It is but a late and novel acception of the word Church whereby it is taken for stated fixed congregations for publike Worship and doubtless the original of it is only from the distinction of Churches in greater Cities into their several 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or publike places for meeting whence the Scotch Kirk and our English Church so that from calling the place Church they proceed to call the persons there meeting by that name and thence some think the name of Church so appropriated to such a society of Christians as may meet at such a place that they make it a matter of Religion not to call those places Churches from whence originally the very name as we use it was derived But this may be pardoned among other the religioâ—s weaknesses of well meaning but lesse knowing people A Church in its primary sense as it answers to the Greek 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 applyed to Christians is a society of Christians living together in one City whether meeting together in many Congregations or one is not at all material because they were not called a Church as meeting together in one place but as they were a Society of Christians inhabiting together in such a City not but that I think a society of Christians might be called a Church where-ever they were whether in a City or Countrey but because the first and chief mention we meet with in Scripture of Churches is of such as did dwell together in the same Cities as is evident from many pregnant places of Scripture to this purpose As Acts 14. 23. compared with Titus 1. 5. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in one place is the same with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the other Ordaining Elders in every Church and ordaining Elders in every City which implyes that by Churches then were meant the body of Christians residing in the Cities over which the Apostles ordained Elders to rule them So Acts 16. 4. 5. As they went through the Cities c. and so were the Churches established in the faith The Churches here were the Christians of those Cities which they went through So Acts 20. 17. He sent to Ephesus and called the Elders of the Church If by the Elders we mean as all those do we now deal with the Elders of Ephesus then it is here evident that the Elders of the Church and of the City are all one but what is more observable ver 28. he calls the Church of that City 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Take heed to your selves and to the flock over which God hath made you overseâ—rs to feed the Church of God Where several things are observable to our purpose first that the body of Christians in Ephesus is called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the flock of the Church and not the several flocks and Churches over which God hath made you Bishops Secondly That all these spoken to were such as had a pastoral charge of this one flock Paul calls them 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and chargeth them 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to do the work of a Pastor towards it So
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-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-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
Presbyterii honore provexit What more plain and evident then that here a Presbyter ordained a Presbyter which we now here read was pronounced null by Theophilus then Bishop of Alexandria or any others that at time It is a known instance that in the ordination of Pelagius first Bishop of Rome there were only two Bishops concurred and one Presbyter whereas according to the fourth Canon of the Nicene Council three Bishops are absolutely required for Ordinaâ—ion 〈…〉 Bishop either â—hen Pelagius was no Canonical Bishop and so the point of succession thereby fails in the Church of Rome or else a Presbyter hath the same intrinsecal power of Ordination which a Bishop hath but it is onely restrained by Ecclesiastical Lawes In the time of Eustathius Bishop of Antioch which was done A. D. 328 as Iacobus Gothâ—â—redus proves till the time of the ordination of Paulinus A. D. 362. which was for thirty four years space when the Church was governed by Paulinus and his Colleagues withdrawing from the publick Assemblies it will be hard to say by whom the Ordinations were performed all this while unless by Paulinus and his Collegues In the year 452. it appears by Leo in his Epistle to Rusticus Narbonensis that some Presbyters took upon them to ordain as Bishops about which he was consulted by Rusticus what was to be done in that Case with those so ordained Leo his resolution of that Case is observable Siqui autem Clerici ab ist is pseudo-Episcopis in iis Ecclesiis ordinati sunt quae ad prâ—prios Episcopos pertinebant ordinatio â—orum cum consensn judicio praesidentium facta est potest rata haberi ita ut in ipsis Ecclesiis perseverent Those Clergy men who were ordained by such as took upon them the Office of Bishops in Churches belonging to proper Bishops if the Ordination were performed by the consent of the Bishops it may be looked on as valid and those Presbyters remain in their Office in the Church So that by the consent ex post facto of the true Bishops those Presbyters thus ordained were looked on as Lawful Presbyteâ—s which could not be unless their ordainers had an intrinsecal power of Ordination which was onely restrained by the Laws of the Church for if they have no power of Ordination it is impossible they should confer any thing by their Oâ—dâ—nation If to this it be answered that the validity of their Ordination did depend upon the consent of the Bishops and that Presbyters may ordain if delegated thereto by Bishops as Paulinus might ordain on that account at Antioch It is easily answered that this very power of doing it by delegation doth imply an intrinsecal power in themselves of doing it For iâ— Presbyters be forbidden ordaining others by Scriptures then they can neither do it in their own persons nor by delegation from others Fâ—â— Qâ—od alicui suo nomine â—on lices nec 〈…〉 Anâ—â—â—â—â— Rule oâ— Cyprian must hold true Non aliquid câ—i â—â—â—â— largiri potest humana indulgentia ubi intercâ—dit legâ—â— tribuit Divina â—râ—scriptio There can be no dispensing with Divine Lawes which must be if that may be delegated to other persons which was required of men in the Office wherein they are And if Presbyters have power of conferring nothing by their Ordination how can an after-consent of Bishops make that Act of theirs valid for conserring Right and Power by it It appears then that this Power was restrained by the Lawes of the Church for preserving Uâ—ity in its self but yet so that in case of necessity what was done by Presbyters was not looked on as invalid But against this the case of Ischyras ordained as it is said a Presbyter by Collutbus and pronounced null by the Council of Alexandria is commonly pleaded But there is no great difficulty in answering it For first the pronouncing such an Ordination null doth not evidence that they looked on the power of Ordination as belonging of Divine right onely to Bishops for we find by many instances that acting in a bare contempt of Ecclesiastical Canons was sufficient to degrade any from being Presbyters Secondly If Ischyras had been ordained by a Bishop there were câ—rcumstances enough to induce the Council to pronounce it null First as done out of the Diocess in which case Ordinations are nulled by Concil Arel cap. 13. Secondly done by open and pronounced Schismaticks Thirdly done sine titulo 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and â—o nulled by the Canons then Thirdly Colluthns did not act as a Presbyter in ordaining but as a Bishop of the Meletian party in Cynus as the Clergy of Mareotis speaking of Ischyras his ordination 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by Collytbus a Presbyter making shew of being a Bishop and is supposed to have been ordained a Bishop by Meletius More concerning this may be seen in Blondel who fully clears all the particulars here mentiâ—â—eâ— So that notwithstanding this Instance nothing appears but that the power of Ordination was restrained only by Ecclesiastical Lawâ— The last thing to prove that the Church did act upon prudence in Church-Government is from the many restraints in other cases made by the Church for restraint of that Liberty which was allowed by Divine Laws He must be a stranger to the ancient Canons and Constitutions of the Church that takes not notice of such restraints made by Canons as in reference to observation of several Rites and Customes in the Churches determined by the Provincial Synods of the several Churches for which purpose their Provincial Synods were still kept up in the Eastern Church as appears by the Testimony of Firmilian in his Epistle to Cyprian Qua ex causa necessariò apud nos fit ut per singulos annos Seniores Praepositi in unum conveniamus ad disponenda ea quae curae nostrae commissa sunt Ut si quae graviora sunt communi consilio dirigantur lapsis quoque fratribus c. medela quaeratur non quasi à nobis remissionem peccatorum consequâ—ntâ—r sed â—t per nos ad intelligentiam delictorum suorum convertantur Domino pleniùs satisfacere cogantur The several orders about the Discipline of the Church were detâ—rmined in these Synods as to which he that would find a command in Scripture for their ordeâ—s about the Catechumeni and Lapsi will take pains to no purpose the Church ordering things it self for the better Regulating the several Churches they were placed over A demonstrative Argument that these things came not from Divine command is from the great diversiâ—y of these customes in several places of which besides Socrates Sozomen largely speaks and may easily be gathered from the History of the several Churches When the Church began to enjoy ease and liberty and thereby had opportunity of enjoying greater conveniency for Councils we find what was detrrmined by those Councils were entred into a Codex Canonum for that purpose which
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
two We distinguish then between a power declarative of the obligation of former Laws and a power authoritative determining a New Obligation between the office of counselling and advising what is fit to be done and a power determining what shall be done between the Magistrates duty of consulting in order to the doing it and his deriving his authority for the doing it These things premised I say First that the power of declaring the obligation of former Laws and of consulting and advising the Magistrate for setling of New Laws for the Policy of the Church belongs to the Pastors and Governours of the Church of God This belongs to them as they are commanded to teach what Christ hath commanded them but no authority thereby given to make new Laws to bind the Church but rather a tying them up to the commands of Christ already laid down in his Word For a power to bind mens consciences to their determinations lodged in the Officers of the Church must be derived either from a Law of God giving them this right or else only from the consent of parties For any Law of God there is none produced with any probability of reason but that Obey those that are over you in the Lord. But that implies no more then submitting to the Doctrine and Discipline of the Gospel and to those whom Christ hath constituted as Pastors of his Church wherein the Law of Christ doth require obedience to them that is in looking upon them and owning them in their relation to them as Pastors But that gives them no authority to make any new Laws or Constitutions binding mens consciences any more then a Command from the Supreme authority that inferiour Magistrates should be obeyed doth imply any power in them to make new Laws to bind them But thus far I acknowledge a binding power in Ecclesiastical Constitutions though they neither bind by virtue of the matter nor of the authority commanding there being no legislative power lodged in the Church yet in respect of the circumstances and the end they should be obey'd unlesse I judge the thing unlawfull that is commanded rather then manifest open contempt of the Pastors of the Church or being a scandall to others by it But as to the other power arising from mutual compact and consent of Parties I acknowledge a power to bind all included under that compact not by vertue of any Supream binding power in them but from the free consent of the parties submitting which is most agreeable to the Nature of Church-power being not coactive but directive and such was the confederate discipline of the primitive Church before they had any Christian Magistrate And thence the decrees of Councils were call'd Canons and not Laws Secondly Though it be the Magistrates duty to consult with the Pastors of the Church to know what is most agreeable to the Word of God for the settlement of the Church yet the Magistrate doth not derive his authority in commanding things from their sentence decree and judgement but doth by vertue of his own power cause the obligation of men to what is so determin'd by his own enacting what shall be done in the Church The great use of Synods and Assemblies of Pastors of Churches is to be as the Council of the Church unto the King in matters belonging to the Church as the Parliament is for matters of civil concernment And as the King for the settling civil Laws doth take advice of such persons who are most versed in matters of Law so by proportion of reason in matters concerning the Church they are the fittest Council who have been the most versed in matters immediately belonging to the Church In the management of which affairs as much if not more prudence experience judgement moderation is requisite as in the greatest affairs of State For we have found by dolefull experience that if a fire once catch the Church and Aarons Bells ring backward what a Combustion the whole State is suddenly put into and how hardly the Churches Instruments for quenching such fires lachrymae preces Ecclesiae do attain their end The least peg serued up too high in the Church soon causeth a great deal of discord in the State and quickly puts mens spirits out of Tune Whereas many irregularities may happen in the State and men live in quietnesse and peace But if Phaâ—tons dâ—ive the Chariot of the Sun the World wil be soon on fire I mean such in the Church whose brains like the Unicorns run out into the length of the Horn Such who have more fury then zeal and yet more zeal then knowledge or Moderation Persons therefore whose calling â—temper office and experience hath best acquainted them with the State-actions Policy of the primitive Church and the incomparable Prudence and Moderation then Used are fittest to debate consult deliberate and determine about the safest expedients for repairing breaches in a divided broken distracted Church But yet I say when such men thus assembled have gravely and maturely advised and deliberated what is best and fitted to te done the force strength and obligation of the things so determin'd doth depend upon the power and authority of the Civil Magistrate for taking the Church as incorporated into the civill state as Ecclesia est in republicâ non respublica in Ecclesia according to that known speech of Optatus Milivetanus so though the object of these constitutions and the persons determining them and the matter of them be Ecclesiasticall yet the force and ground of the obligation of them is wholly civill So Peter Martyr expresly Nam quod ad potestatem Ecclesiasticam attinet satis est civilis Magistratus is enim â—urare debet ut omnes officium faciant But for the judgement of the reformed Divines about this see Vedelius de Episcopatis Constant. M Officium Magistratus Christiani annexed to Grotius de Imper. c. I therefore proceed to lay down the reason of it First That whereby we are bound either to obedience or penalty upon disobedience is the ground of the obligation but it is upon the account of the Magistrates power that we are either bound to obedience or to submit to penalties upon disobedience For it is upon the account of our general obligation to the Magistrate that we are bound to obey any particular Laws or Constitutions Because it is not the particular determinations made by the civil Magistrate which do immediately bind Conscience but the general Law of Scripture requires it as a duty from us to obey the Magistrate in all things lawfull Obedience to the Magistrate is due immediately from Conscience but obedience to the Laws of the Magistrate comes not directly from Conscience but by vertue of the general obligation And therefore disobedience to the Magistrates Laws is an immediate sin against Conscience because it is against the general obligation but obedience to particular Laws ariseth not immediately from the obligation of Conscience to
Praetor Consul Tribune might be appealed to from the sentence of another The originall of Appeals then is that injuries may be redressed and in order to that nature dictates that there ought to be a subordination of Powers one to another lest any injury done through corruption or ignorance of the immediate Judges prove irremediable To which purpose our learned Whitaker saith that Appeals are juris divini naturalis in omni societate admodum necessariae propter multorum judicum vel iniquitatem vel ignorantiam alioqui actum esset de innocente si non liceret ab iniqua sententia appestare So that appeals are founded upon natural right lest men should be injured in any determination of a case by those that have the cognizance of it And in order to a redress of wrongs and ending controversies Nature tells us that Appeals must not be infinite but there must be some Power from whence Appeals must not be made What that should be must be determined in the same manner that it is in Civils not that every Controversie in the Church must be determined by an Oecumenical Council but that it is in the Power of the Supream Magistrate as Supream head in causes Ecclesiastical to limit and fix this Subordination and determine how far it shall go and no further The Determination being in order to the Peace of the Church which Christian Magistrates are bound to look after and see that causes hang not perpetually without Decision And so we find the Christian Emperours constituting to whom Appeals should be made and where they should be fixed as Iustinian and Theodostus did For when the Church is incorporated into the Common-wealth the chief Authority in a Common-wealth as Christian belongs to the same to which it doth as a Common-wealth But of that already It is then against the Law and Light of Nature and the natural right of every man for any particular company of men calling themselves a Church to ingross all Ecclesiastical Power so into their hands that no liberty of Appeals for redress can be made from it Which to speak within compass is a very high usurpation made upon the Civil and Religious rights of Christians because it leaves men under a causeless censure without any authoritative vindication of them from it As for that way of elective Synods substituted in the place of authoritative Power to determine Controversies it is a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which will never be soveraign enough to cure the distemper it is brought for For elective Synods are but like that which the Lawyers call arbitrium boni viri which they distinguish from arbitrium ex compromisso and binds no further then the party concerned doth judge the Sentence equall and just So that this helps us with no way to end controversies in the Church any further then the persons engaged are willing to account that just which shall be judged in their Case Taking then a coercive Power onely for such a one as may authoritatively decide a controvâ—rsie we see what great Reason there is for what the Historian observes Arbitriis ii se debent interponere qui non parenteâ— coercere possunt That all Power of Arbitration should have some juridicall power going along with it to make a finall end of quarrels But that which seems yet more strange to me is this that by those who assert the Independency of particular Congregationâ— it is so hotly pleaded that Christ hath given every particular Congregation a Power over its own Members to determine controversies arising between them but that if one or many of these particular Congregations should erre or break the Rule he hath left no power Authoritatively to decide what should be done in such cases Can we conceive that Christ should provide more for the Cases of particular Persons then of particular Churches And that he should give Authority for Determining one and not the other Is there any more coactive Power given by any to Synods or greater Officers then there is by them to particular Churches which power is onely declarative as to the Rule though Authoritative as to persons where-ever it is lodged Is there not more danger to Gods People by the scandals of Churches then Persons Or did Christs Power of governing his People reach to them onely as particular Congregations Doth not this too strongly savour of the Pars Donati only the Meridies must be rendred a particular Congregationall Church where Christ causeth his Flock to rest But supposing the Scripture not expresly to lay down a Rule for governing many Churches are men outlawed of their natural Rights that supposing a wrong Sentence passed in the Congregation there is no hopes way or means to redress his injury and make his innocency known Doth this look like an Institution of Christ But that which I conceive is the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and the Original of this mistake is that the Churches we read of first Planted in Scripture were onely particular Congregations and therefore there is no proper Church-power beyond them or above them I meddle not with the Antâ—cedent now which is largely discussed by others but the extream weakness of the consequence is that I am here obliged to discover For what a strange shortness of Discourse is it to Argue thus If when there was but one Congregation that Congregation had all Power within its self then when there are more particular congregations it must be so and yet this is the very Foundation of all those Kingdomes of Yvetos as one calls them those sole self-governing congregations When there was but one congregation in a Church it was necessary if it had any Church-power that it must be lodged in that one congregation But when this congregation was multiplyed into many more is it not as necessary for their mutual Government there should be a common power governing them together as a joynt-society Besides the first congregational Church in the New Testament viz. that of Ierusalem could be no particular Organical Church for it had many if not all Universall Officers in it and if they were the fixed Pastours of that Church they could not according to the Principles of those who thus speak Preach to any other congregation but their own by vertue of their Office And so either their Apostolicall Office and Commission must be destroyed if they were Pastors of particular Organical Churches or if their Apostolicall Office be asserted their Pastorship of particular Organicall Churches is destroyed by their own Principles who â—ssert that the Pastor of a Church can do no Pastorall Office out of his own congregation The case is the same as to other Churches planted by the Apostles and govern'd by themselves which two as far as I can find in the New Testament were of an equal extent viz. That all the Churches planted by Apostles were chiefly governed by themselves though they had subordinate officers under them These first Churches then
were not such particular Organized Churches but they were as the first matter of many congregations to be propagated out of them which after made one Society consisting of those several congregations imbodyed together and ruled by one common Government As in a Colledge every Tutor hath his own Pupils wich he rules and if we suppose but one Tutor at first in the Colledge with his Pupils all the power both common to the Society and peculiar to his Flock is joyned together but when there are many more Tutors having Pupils under their charge all these for their better ordering as a Society must be governed by the common Government of the Colledge to which the particular Government of every Tutor is and must be subordinate But this will be more fully made appear in the Original of Civil Government It is far more evident that all Civil power lay at first in Adam and his Family and afterwards in particular Families than that all Church-power lay in particular congregations at first We may then with as good Reason say that there is no lawfull civil Government now but that of particular Families and that no Nationall Government hath any right or power over particular Families because Families had once all civil Power within themselves as because it â—â— supposed that all Church-power lay first in particular congregations therefore there must be no Church-power above them nor that particular congregations are subject to such Government as is requisite for the Regulating of the Society in common as comprehending in it many particular congregations Let them shew then how any Government in the State is lawfull when Families had the first power and by what right now those Families are subordinate to the civill Magistrate and what necessity there is for it and by the very same Reasons will we shew the lawfulness of Government in the Church over many Congregations and that those are by the same right and upon the same necessity to subordinate themselves to the Government of the Church considereâ—â—â— a Society taking in many particular Congregations The Parallel runs on further and clearer still For as the heads of the severall Families after the Flood had the command over all dwelling under their Roofs while they remained in one Family and when that increased into more there power was extended over them too which was the first Original of Monarchy in the World So the Planters of the first Churches that while the Church was but one Congregation had power over it when this Congregation was multiplyed into more their Power equally extended over them all And as afterwards several heads of Families upon their increase did constitute distinct Civil Governments wherein were subordinate Officers but those Governments themselves were co-ordinate one with another So in the Church so many Congregations as make up one Provincial or National Society as succession and prudence doth order the bounds of them do make up several particular Churches enjoying their Officers ruling them but subordinare to the Governours of the Church in common Which Society National or Provincial is subordinate to none beyond its self but enjoyes a free Power within its self of ordering things for its own Government as it judgeth most convenient and agreeable to the Rules of Scripture The summe then of what I say concerning subordination of Officers and Powers in the Society of the Church is this That by the light and Law of Nature it appears that no individuall company or Congregation hath an absolute independent power within its self but that for the redressing grievances happening in them appeals are 〈…〉 to the parties aggrieved and a subordination of that particu 〈…〉 Congregation to the Government of the Society in common 〈…〉 at the right of Appealing and Originall of Subordination is from Nature the particular manner and form of subordinate and superiour Courts is to be fetched from positive Lawes the limitation of Appeals extent of jurisdiction the binding power of Sentence so far as concerns external Unity in the Church is to be fetched from the power of the Magistrate and civil Sanctions and Constitutions The Churches power as to Divine Law being onely directive and declarative but being confirmed by a civil Sanction is juridicall and obligatory Concerning the Magistrates power to call confirm alter repeal the Decrees of Synods see Grotius Chamier Whitaker Casaubon Mornay and others who fully and largely handle it To whom having nothing to add I will take nothing at all from them As for that time when the Church was without Magistrates ruling in it in those things left undetermined by the Rule of the Word they acted out of Principles of Christian Prudence agreeable to the Rules of Scripture and from the Principles of the Law of nature One of which we come in the next place to speak to So much for the Churches Power considered as a Society for ending controversies arising within its self tending to break the Peace and Unity of it 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 the 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 usefull for recovering the credit of Christianity The Discipline of the Primitive Church cleared from Origen Iustin Martyr Pliny Tertullian The necessary requisites of Church Membership whether positive signs of Grace Explicite Covenant how far necessary not the formal Constitution of a Church * proved by several Arguments THe Law of Nature dictates That all who are admitted into this Society must consent to be governed by the Laws and Rules of that Society according to its Constitution For none can be looked upon as a Member of a Society but such a one as submits to the Rules and Laws of the Society as constituted at the time of his entrance into it That all civil Societies are founded upon voluntary consent and agreement of parties and do depend upon Contracts and Covenants made between them is evident to any that consider that men are not bound by the Law of Nature to associate themselves with any but whom they shall judge fit that Dominion and Propriety was introduced by free consent of men and so there must be Laws and Bonds fit agreement made and submission acknowledged to those Lawes else Men might plead their Naturall Right and Freedom still which would be destructive to the very Nature of these Societies When men then did first part with their natural Liberties two things were necessary in the most express terms to be declared First a free and voluntary consent to part with
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
the continuance of a Gospel Ministry fully cleared from all those Arguments by which positive Lawes are proved immutable The reason of the appointment of it continues the dream of a seculum Spiritûs Sancti discussed first broached by the Mâ—ndicant Friers It s occasion and unreasonableness shewed Gods declaring the perpetuity of a Gospel Ministry Matth. 28. 19. explained A novell Interpretation largely refuted The world to come what A Ministry necessary for the Churches continuance Ephes. 4. 12. explained and vindicated SEcondly That the Government of the Church ought to be Administred by Officers of Divine appointment is another thing I will yield to be of Divine Right but the Church here I take not in that latitude which I did in the former Concession but I take it chiefly here for the Members of the Church as distinct from Officers as it is taken in Acts 15. 22. So that my meaning is that there must be a standing perpetuall Ministry in the Church of God whose care and imployment must be to oversee and Govern the People of God and to administer Gospel-Ordinances among them and this is of Divine and perpetuall Right That Officers were appointed by Christ in the Church for these ends at first is evident from the direct affirmation of Scripture God hath set in the Church first Apostles secondly Prophets thirdly Teachers c. 1 Corinth 12. 28. Eph. 4. 8 11. and other places to the same purpose This being then a thing acknowledged that they were at first of Divine Institution and so were appointed by a Divine positive Law which herein determines and restrains the Law of Nature which doth not prescribe the certain qualifications of the persons to govern this Society nor the instalment or admission of them into this employment viz by Ordination The only enquiry then left is Whether a standing Gospel-ministry be such a positive Law as is to remain perpetually in the Church or no which I shall make appear by those things which I laid down in the entrance of this Treatise as the Notes whereby to know when positive Laws are unalterable The first was when the same reason of the command continues still and what reason is there why Christ should appoint Officers to rule his Church then which will not hold now Did the people of God need Ministers then to be as Stars as they are call'd in Scripture to lead them unto Christ and do they not as well need them now Had people need of guides then when the doctrine of the Gospel was confirmed to them by miracles and have they not much more now Must there be some then to oppose gainsayers and must they have an absolute liberty of prophecying now when it is foretold what times of seduction the last shall be Must there be some then to rule over their charge as they that must give an account and is not the same required still Were there some then to reprove rebuke exhort to preach in season out of season and is there not the same necessity of these things still Was it not enough then that there were so many in all Churches that had extraordinary gifts of tongues prophecying praying interpretation of tongues but besides those there were some Pastors by office whose duty it was to give attendance to reading to be wholly in these things and now when these extraordinary gifts are ceased is not there a much greater necessity then there was then for some to be set apart and wholly designed for this work Were Ordinances only then administred by those whom Christ commissioned and such as derived their authority from them and what reason is there that men should arrogate and take this imployment upon themselves now If Christ had so pleased could he not have left it wholly at liberty for all believers to have gone about preaching the Gospel or why did he make choice of 12. Apostles chiefly for that work were it not his Will to have some particularly to dispense the Gospel and if Christ did then separate some for that work what Reason is there why that Office should be thrown common now which Christ himself inclosed by his own appointment There can be no possible Reason imagined why a Gospel-Ministry should not continue still unless it be that Fanatick pretence of a Seculum Spiritus Sancti a Dispensation of the Spirit which shall evacuate the use of all means of Instruction and the use of all Gospel-Ordinances which pretence is not so Novell as most imagine it to be for setting aside the Montanistical spirit in the Primitive Times which acted upon Principles much of the same Nature with these we now speak of The first rise of this Ignis fatuus was from the bogs of Popery viz. from the Orders of the Dominicans and Franciscans about the middle of the twelfth Century For no sooner did the Pauperes de Lugduno or the Waldenses appear making use of the Word of God to confute the whole Army of Popish Traditions but they finding themselves worsted at every turn while they disputed that ground found out a Stratagem whereby to recover their own Credit and to beat their adversaries quite out of the field Which was that the Gospel which they adhered to so much was now out of date and instead of that they broached another Gospel out of the Writings of the Abbot Ioachim and Cyrils visions which they blasphemously named Evangelium Spiritus Sancti Evangelium Novum and Evangelium Aeternum as Gulielmus de Sancto Amore their great Antagonist relates in his Book de periculis noviss temporum purposely designed against the Impostures of the Mendicant Friers who then like Locusts rose in multitudes with their shaven crowns out of the bottomless pit This Gospel of the Spirit they so much magnified above the Gospel of Christ that the same Author relates these words of theirs concerning it Quod comparatum ad Evangelium Christi tanto plus perfectionis ac dignitatis habet quantum Sol ad Lunam comparatus aut ad nucleum testa that it exceeded it as much as the kernell doth the shell or the Light of the Sun doth that of the Moon We see then from what quarter of the World this new Light began to rise but so much for this digression To the thing it self If there be such a dispensation of the Spirit which takes away the use of Ministry and Ordinances it did either commence from the time of the effusion of the Spirit upon the Apostles or some time since Not then for even of those who had the most large portion of the Spirit poured upon them we read that they continued in all Gospel ordinances Acts 2. 42 and among the chief 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 under the Apostles Ministry it may be better rendred than in the Apostles Doctrine And which is most observable the Prophecy of Ioel about the Spirit is then said to be fulfilled Acts 2. 17.
will be with his Disciples to the end of that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 if we take it for a state of things or the Gospel-dispensation that is as long as the Evangelical Church shall continue For that in Scripture is sometime called The World to come and that Phrase among the Jews of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the world to come is set to express the times of the Messias and it may be the Apostle may referr to this when he speaks of Apostales tasting 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is the force and energy of the Gospel preached whence the Kingdom of God is said to be not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not in word but in power which is the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 spoken of by the Apostle elsewhere the powerfull demonstration of the Spirit accompanying the preaching of the Gospel When Christ is called by the Prophet 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the everlasting Father the Septuagint renders it by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and so the Vulgar Latin Pater futuri saeculi the Father of the World to Come that is the Gospel State and to this sense Christ is said to be made an High Priest 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and the Law to be a shadow 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of good things which should be under the new state of the Gospel And which is more plain to the purpose the Apostle expresseth what was come to passe in the dayes of the Gospel 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the Ages to come where the very word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is used to this sense And according to this importance of the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 some very probably interpret that place of our Saviour concerning the sin against the Holy Ghost that it should not be forgiven 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 neither in the present state of the Iewish Church wherein there is no sacrifice of expiation for contumacious sinners but they that despised Moses Law dyed without mercy so neither shall there be any under the World to come that is the dispensation of Gospel Grace any pardon proclaimed to any such sinners who â—â—ample under foot the blood of the Covenant and offer despight to the Spirit of grace Thus we see how properly the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 may agree here to the Gospel-State and so Christs promise of his Presence doth imply the perpetuity of that Office as long as the Evangelical state shall remain which will be to the Worlds end The third thing whereby to know when positive institutions are unalterable is when they are necessary to the being succession and continuance of the Church of God Now this yields a further evidence of the perpetuity of Officers in the Church of God seeing the Church its self cannot be preserved without the Government and there can be no Government without some to Rule the members of the Church of God and to take care for a due administration of Church-priviledges and to inflict censures upon offenders which is the power they are invested in by the same authority which was the ground of their institution at first It is not conceivable how any Society as the Church is can be preserved without the continuance of Church-Officers among them As long as the Body of Christ must be edified there must be some 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 fitted for the work of the Ministry which is appointed in order to that end For that I suppose is the Apostles meaning in Ephes. 4. 12. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 following the Complutensian copy leaving out the comma between 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which makes as though it were a distinct thing from the former whereas the Original carryes the sense on for otherwise it should have been 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. and those who follow the ordinary reading are much at a loss how to explain that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 coming in so in the midst without dependance upon the former Therefore the vulg Latin best renders it ad consummationem sanctorum ad opus ministerii for the compleating of the Saints for the work of the ministry in order to the building up of the body of Christ and to this purpose Musculus informs us the German version renders it And so we understand the enumeration in the verse before of Apostles Prophets Evangelists Pastors and Teachers not for the persons themselves but for the gifts of those persons the office of Apostles Evangelists Pastors c. which is most suitable to the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the eighth verse He gave gifts to men now these gifts saith he Christ gave to men 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for the fitting the Saints for the work of the Ministry Not as a late Democratical Writer would perswade us as though all the Saints were thereby fitted for this Work of the Ministry for that the Apostle excludes by the former enumeration for are all the Saints fitted for Apostles are all Prophets are all Evangelists are all Pastors and Teachers as the Apostle himself elsewhere argues And in the 8 v. of that chapter he particularly mentions the several gifts qualifying men for several usefull employments in the Church of God the Spirit dividing to every man severally as he will Therefore it cannot be that all the Saints are hereby fitted for this Work but God hath scattered these gifts among the Saints that those who have them might be fitted 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 because God would not leave his Church without persons qualified for the service of himself in the work of the Ministry in order to the building up of the Body of Christ. And by the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 here may be meant no other then those he speaks of in the chapter before when he speaks of the Revelation made 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to his holy Apostles and Prophets and so God gave these gifts for the fiitting the holy Apostles c. for the work of the Ministry It cannot be meant of all so as to destroy a peculiar function of the Ministry for Gods very giving these gifts to some and not to others is an evidence that the function is peculiar For else had the gifts been common to all every Saint had been an Apostle every believer a Pastor and Teacher and then where had the People been that must have been ruled and governed So that this very place doth strongly assert both the peculiarity of the Function from the peculiarity of gifts in order to fitting men for it and the perpetuity of the Function from the end of it the building up of the Body of Christ. Thus I have now asserted the perpetual divine Right of a Gospel-Ministry not only for teaching the Word but administration of Ordinances and governing the Church as a Society which work belongs to none but such as are appointed for it who are the same
comparison of Christ with Moses from the equal necessity of forms of Government now which there is for other Societies from the perfection and sufficiency of the Scriptures all other arguments are reducible to these three Heads Of these in their order First From the comparison of Christ with Moses they argue thus If Moses was faithfull in his house as a servant much more Christ as a Son now Moses appointed a particular form of Government for the Church under the old Testament therefore Christ did certainly lay down a form of Church Government for the New Testament To this I answer first Faithfulnesse implyes the discharge of a trust reposed in one by another so that it is said vers 2. he was faithful to him that appointed him Christs faithfulnesse then lay in discharging the Work which his Father laid upon him which was the Work of mediation between God and us and therefore the comparison is here Instituted between Moses as typical Mediator and Christ as the true Mediator that as Moses was faithfull in his Work so was Christ in his Now Moses his faithfulnesse lay in keeping close to the Pattern received in the Mount that is observing the commands of God Now therefore if Christs being faithfull in his office doth imply the setling any one form of Goverment in the Church it must be made appear that the serling of this form was part of Christs Mediatory Work and that which the Father commanded him to do as Mediator and that Christ received such a form from the Father for the Christian Church as Moses did for the Jewish To this it is said That the Government is laid upon Christs shoulders and all power in his hands and therefore it belongs to him as Mediatour Christ I grant is the King of the Church and doth govern it outwardly by his Laws and inwardly by the conduct of his Spirit but shall we say that therefore any one form of Government is necessary which is neither contained in his Laws nor dictated by his Spirit the main original of mistakes here is the confounding the external and internal Government of the Church of Christ and thence whensoever men read of Christs power authority and government they fancy it refers to the outward Government of the Church of God which is intended of his internal Mediatory power over the hearts and consciences of men But withall I acknowledge that Christ for the better government of his Church and people hath appointed Officers in his Church invested them by vertue of his own power with an authority to preach and baptize and administer all Gospel-Ordinances in his own Name that is by his authority for it is clearly made known to us in the Word of God that Christ hath appointed these things But then whether any shall succeed the Apostles in superiority of power over Presbyters or all remain governing the Church in an equality of power is nowhere determined by the Will of Christ in Scripture which contains his Royal Law and therefore we have no reason to look upon it as any thing flowing from the power and authority of Christ as Mediator and so not necessarily binding Christians Secondly I answer If the correspondency between Christ and Moses in their work doth imply an equal exactnesse in Christs disposing of every thing in his Church as Moses did among the Jews then the Church of Christ must be equally bound to all circumstances of Worship as the Jews were For there was nothing appertaining in the least to the Worship of God but was fully set down even to the pins of the Tabernacle in the Law of Moses but we find no such thing in the Gospel The main Duties and Ordinances are prescribed indeed but their circumstances and manner of performance are left as matters of Christian-liberty and only couched under some general Rules which is a great difference between the legal and Gospel-state Under the Law all Ceremonies and Circumstances are exactly prescribed but in the Gospel we read of some general Rules of direction for Christians carriage in all circumstantial things These four especially contain all the directions of Scripture concerning Circumstantials All things to be done decently and in order All to be done for edification Give no offence Do all to the glory of God So that the particular circumstances are left to Christian-liberty with the observation of general Rules It is evident as to Baptism and the Lords Supper which are unquestionably of divine Institution yet as to the circumstances of the administration of them how much lesse circumstantial is Christ then Moses was As to circumcision and the pass-over under the Law the age time persons manner place form all fully set down but nothing so under the Gospel Whether Baptism shall be administred to Infants or no is not set down in expresse words but left to be gathered by Analogy and consequences what manner it shall be administred in whether by dipping or sprinkling is not absolutely determined what form of words to be used whether in the name of all three persons or sometimes in the Name of Christ only as in the Acts we read if that be the sense and not rather in Christs Name i. e. by Christs authority Whether sprinkling or dipping shall be thrice as some Churches use it or only once as others These things we see relating to an Ordinance of Divine Institution are yet past over without any expresse command determining either way in Scripture So as to the Lords Supper What persons to be admitted to it whether all visible professors or only sincere Christians upon what terms whether by previous examination of Church-officers or by an open profession of their faith or else only by their own tryal of themselves required of them as their duty by their Ministers whether it should be alwayes after Supper as Christ himself did it whether taking fasting or after meat whether kneeling or sitting or leaning Whether to be consecrated in one form of words or several These things are not thought fit to be determined by any positive command of Christ but left to the exercise of Christian-liberty the like is as to preaching the Word publike Prayer singing of Psalmes the duties are required but the particular Modes are left undetermined The case is the same as to Church-governwent That the Church be governed and that it be governed by its proper Officers are things of Divine appointment but whether the Church should be governed by many joyning together in an equality or by Subordination of some persons to others is left to the same liberty which all other Circumstances are this being not the Substance of the thing it self but onely the manner of performance of it 3. I answer That there is a manifest disparity between the Gospel and Jewish state and therefore Reasons may be given why all Punctilioes were determined then which are not now as 1. The perfection and
liberty of the Gospel-state above the Jewish The Law was onely as a Paedagogy the Church then in her Infancy and Nonage and therefore wanted the Fescues of Ceremonies to direct her and every part of her lesson set her to bring her by degrees to skill and exactness in her Understanding the mystery of the things represented to her But must the Church now grown up under Christ be still sub ferula and not dare to vary in any Circumstance which doth not concern the thing it self A Boy at School hath his Lesson set him and the manner of learning it prescribed him in every mode and circumstance But at the University hath his Lectures read him and his work set and general Directions given but he is left to his own liberty how to perform his work and what manner to use in the doing of it So it was with the Church under age Every mode and circumstance was Determined but when the fulnesse of Time was come the Church then being grown up the main Offices themselves were appointed and generall Directions given but a liberty left how to apply and make use of them as to every particular case and occasion Things Morall remain still in their full force but circumstantials are left more at liberty by the Gospel-liberty as a Son that is taught by his Father while he is under his instruction must observe every particular direction for him in his Learning but when he comes to age though he observes not those things as formerly yet his Son ship continues and he must obey his Father as a Childe still though not in the same manner The similitude is the Apostles Galat. 4. 1 2 3 4 5. 10. which he there largely amplifies to this very purpose of freeing Christians from Judaical ceremonies 2. The Form of Government among the Jewes in the tribe of Levi was agreeable to the Form of Government among the other Tribes and so Moses was not more exact in Reference to that then to any other and those persons in that Tribe who were the chief before the Institution of the Aâ—ronicall Priest-hood were so after but now under the Gospel people are not under the same Restrictions for civil Government by a Judicial Law as they were then For the Form of Ecclesiastical Government then took place among them as one of their Judicial Laws And therefore if the Argument hold Christ must as well Prescribe a Form for civil Government as Ecclesiastical if Christ in the Gospel must by his Faithfulnesse follow the Pattern of Moses But if Christ be not bound to follow Moses Pattern as to Judicial Law for his Church and People neither is he as to a Form of Ecclesiastical Government because that was a part of their Civil and Judicial Law 3. The people of the Jewes was a whole and entire people subsisting by themselves when one set Form of Government was prescribed them but it is otherwise now under the Gospel The Church of Christ was but Forming in Christs own time nor the Apostles in whose time we reade of but some Cities and no whole Nations converted to the Faith and therefore the same Form of Government would not serve a Church in its first constitution which is necessary for it when it is actually formed A Pastour and Deacons might serve the Church of a City while believers were few but cannot when they are increased into many Congregations And so proportionably when the Church is enlarged to a whole Nation there must be another Form of Government then Therefore they who call for a National Church under the Gospel let them first shew a Nation Converted to the Faith and we will undertake to shew the other And this is the chief Reason why the Churches Polity is so little described in the New Testament because it was onely growing then and it doth not stand to Reason that the coat which was cut out for one in his Infancy must of necessity serve him when grown a man which is the argument of those who will have nothing observed in the Church but what is expressed in Scripture The Apostles looked at the present state of a Church in appointing Officers and ordered things according to the circumstances of them which was necessary to be done in the founding of a Church and the reason of Apostolical practice binds still though not the individual action that as they Regulated Churches for the best conveniency of Governing them so should the Pastours of Churches now But of this largely afterwards 4. Another difference is that the People of the Jewes lived all under one civil Government but it is otherwise with Christians who live under different Forms of civil Government And then by the same reason that in the first institution of their Ecclesiastical Government it was formed according to the civil by the same reason must Christians doe under the Gospel if the argument holds that Christ must be faithful as Moses was And then because Christians do live under several and distinct Forms of civil Government they must be bound by the Law of Christ to contemperate the Government of the Church to that of the State And what they have gained by this for their cause who assert the necessity of any one Form from this Argument I see not but on the contrary this is evident that they have evidently destroyed their own principle by it For if Moses did prescribe a Form of Government for Levi agreeable to the Form of the Common-wealth and Christ be as faithfull as Moses was then Christ must likewise order the Government of Christian Churches according to that of the State and so must have different Forms as the other hath Thus much will serve abundantly to shew the weakness of the argument drawn from the agreement of Christ and Moses for the proving any one form of Government necessary but this shall not suffice I now shall ex abundanti from the answers to this argument lay down several arguments that Christ did never intend to institute any one Form of Government in his Church 1. Whatever binds the Church of God as an institution of Christ must bind as an universal standing Law but one form of Government in the Church cannot bind it as a standing Law For whatever binds as a standing â—aw must either be expressed in direct terms as such a Law or deduced by a necessary Consequence from his Lawes as of an universally binding Nature but any one particular form of Government in the Church is neither expressed in any direct terms by Christ nor can be deduced by just Consequence therefore no such form of Government is instituted by Christ. If there be any such Law it must be produced whereby it is determined in Scripture either that there must be Superiority or Equality among Church Officers as such after the Apostles decease And though the Negative of a Fact holds not yet the Negative of a Law doth else no superstition I have not yet met with
I come to examine the argument from Apostolical Succession Thus we see then that neither the qualification of the persons nor the commands for a right exercise of the office committed to them nor the whole Epistles to Timothy and Titus do determine any one form of Government to be necessary in the Church of God Thirdly Let us see whether the general Rules do require any one form which rules in that they are general can determine nothing of the authority it self as to its particular mode being intended only for the regulation of the exercise of the authority in which men are placed And it is an evidence that nothing is particularly determined in this case when the Spirit of God only lays down such Rules for government which are applyable to distinct forms Otherwise certainly some Rule would have been laid down which could have been applyed to nothing but to that one form That none take the office of preaching without a Call nor go without sending will equally hold whether the power of Ordination lye in a Bishop with Presbyters or in Presbyters acting with equality of power That offenders be censured and complaints made to the Church in case of scandal determines nothing to whom the power of Jurisdiction doth solely belong nor what that Church is which must receive these complaints That all things be done with decency and order doth prescribe nothing wherein that Decency lyes nor how far that Order may extend nor yet who must be the Judges of that Decency and Order That all be done for edification and the common benefit of the Church doth no wayes restrain his Churches freedom in disposing of its self as to the form of its government so the aym of the Church be for the better edification of the body of the Church and to promote the benefit of it But methinks these general Orders and Rules for Discipline do imply the particular manner of government to be left at liberty to the Church of God so that in all the several forms these general Rules be observed Whereas had Christ appointed a superiour Order to govern other subordinate Officers and the Church together Christs command for governing the Church would have been particularly addressed to them and again had it been the will of Christ there should be no superior Order above the Pastours of particular Churches there would have been some expresse and direct prohibition of it which because we no where read it seems evident that Christ hath left both the one and the other to the freedom and liberty of his Church So much shall serve in this place to shew how improbable it is that Christ did ever prescribe any one form of Government in his Church since he hath only laid down general Rules for the management of Church government But this will not yet suffice those who plead that Christ must determine one immutable form of Government in his Church but although it be a high presumption to determine first what Christ must do before we examine what he hath done yet we shall still proceed and examine all the pretences that are brought for this opinion The next thing then which is generally urged for it is the equal necessity of Christs instituting a certain form as for any other Legislator who models a Common-wealth Now for answer to this I say first That Christ hath instituted such an immutable government in his Church as is sufficient for the succession and continuance of it which is all which Founders of Common-wealths do look after viz. that there be such an Order and distinction of persons and subordination of one to the other that a Society may still be preserved among them now this is sufficiently provided for by Christs appointing Officers continually to rule his Church and establishing Laws for the perpetuating of such Officers so whatsoever is necessary in order to the general ends of Government is acknowledged to be appointed by Jesus Christ. Untill then that it be proved that one form of government is in it self absolutely necessary for the being of a Church this argument can prove nothing for what is drawn from necessity will prove nothing but in a case of necessity Secondly I answer That those things which are not absolutely necessary to the being of a Church are left to Christs liberty whether he will determine them or no and are no further to be looked on as necessary then as he hath determined by his Laws whether they shall be or no in his Church The thing will be thus cleared When I read that Zaleucus Lycurgus or Numa did form a Common-wealth and make Laws for it I presently conclude that there must be some order or distinction of persons in this Common wealth and some rules whereby persons must be governed and whereby others must Rule But I cannot hence inferr that Zaleucus or Lycurgus did institute Monarchical Aristocratical or Democratical Government because any of these forms might be agreeable to their design and therefore what kind of government they did appoint can no otherwise be known then by taking a view of the Laws which they made in order thereto So it is in reference to Christ when we read that Christ hath instituted a Church alwayes to continue in the World we presently apprehend that there must be some power and order in the members of that Society and Laws for the governing it but we cannot hence gather that he hath bound up his Officers to act in any one form because several forms might in themselves equally tend to the promoting the end of Government in his Church And therefore what Christ hath expresly determined in his positive Laws must be our Rule of judging in this case and not any presumption of our own that such a form was necessary and therefore Christ must institute and appoint it Which is fully expressed by judicious Mr. Hooker whose words will serve as a sufficient answer to this Objection As for those marvellous Discourses whereby they adventure to argue that God must needs have done the thing which they imagine was to be done I must confesse I have often wondred at their exceeding boldnesse herein When the question is Whether God have delivered in Scripture as they affirm he hath a compleat particular immutable form of Church-Polity why take they that other both presumptuous and superfluous labour to prove he should have done it there being no way in this case to prove the deed of God saving only by producing that evidence wherein he hath done it But if there be no such thing apparent upon record they do as if one should demand a Legacy by force and vertue of some written Testament wherein there being no such thing specified he pleadeth that there it must needs be and bringeth arguments from the Love and good will which alwayes the Testator bore imagining that these or the like proofs will convict a Testament to have that in it which other men can no
where by reading find In matters which concern the actions of God the most dutiful way on our part is to search what God hath done and with meekness to admire that rather then to dispute what he in congruâ—ty of reason ought to do Thus he with more to the same purpose The sum then of the answer to this Argument is this That nothing can be inferred of what Christ must do from his relation to his Church but what is absolutely necessary to the being of it as for all other things they being arbitrary constitutions we can judge no more of the necessity of them then as we find them clearly revealed in the Word of God And therefore the Plea must be removed from what Christ must do to what he hath done in order to the determining the particular form of Government in his Church But still it is argued for the necessity of a particular form of Government in the Church from the similitudes the Church is set out by in Scripture It is called a Vine and therefore must have Keepers an House and therefore must have Government a City and therefore must have a Polity a Body and therefore must have Parts I answer First All these Similitudes prove only that which none deny that there must be Order Power and Government in the Church of God we take not away the Keepers from the Vine nor the Government from the House nor Polity from the City nor distinction of parts from the Body we assert all these things as necessary in the Church of God The keepers of the Vine to defend and prune it the Governours of the House to rule and order it the Polity of the City to guide and direct it the parts of the Body to compleat and adorn it But Secondly None of these Similitudes prove what they are brought for viz. that any one immutable form of Government is determined For may not the Keepers of the Vine use their own discretion in looking to it so the flourishing of the Vine be that they aym at and if there be many of them may there not be different orders among them and some as Supervisors of the others work The House must have Governours but those that are so are entrusted with the power of ordering things in the House according to their own discretion and where there is a multitude is there not diversity of Offices among them and is it necessary that every House must have Offices of the same kind In great and large Families there must be more particular distinct Orders and Offices than in a small and little one The City must have its Polity but all Cities have not the like some have one form and some another and yet there is a City still and a Polity too A body must have all its parts but are all the parts of the body equal one to another it sufficeth that there be a proportion though not equality in them the several parts of the body have their several offices and yet we see the head is superintendent over them all and thus if we make every particular Church a Body yet it follows not that the form of cloathing that Body must alwayes be the same for the manner of Government is rather the cloathing to the Body than the parts of it the Governours indeed are parts of the Body but their manner of governing is not that may alter according to the proportion and growth of the Body and its fashion change for better conveniency But if these Similitudes prove nothing yet certainly say they the difference as to Civil and Ecclesiastical Government will for though there may be different forms in civil Government which are therefore call'd an Ordinance of man yet there must be but one in Church-Government which is an Ordinance of God and Christ hath appointed Officers to rule it I answer first We grant and acknowledge a difference between the Church and the Common-wealth they are constituted for other ends the one Political the other Spiritual one temporal the other eternal they subsist by different Charters the one given to men as men the other to men as Christians They act upon different principles the one to preserve civil Rights the other to promote an eternal Interest nay their formal constitution is different for a man by being a member of a Common-wealth doth not become a Member of the Church and by being excommunicated out of the Church doth not cease to be a Member of the Common-wealth The Officers of the one are clearly distinct from the other the one deriving their power from the Law of Christ the other from Gods general Providence the Magistrate hath no power to Excommunicate formally out of the Church any more then to admit into it nor have the Church-officers any power to cast men out of the common-wealth We see then there is a difference between Civil and Ecclesiastical Government But then I answer Secondly The power of the Magistrate is not therefore called an Ordinance of man because of the mutability of its Form and as distinguished from the Form of Church-government For First The Apostle speaks not of the Form of Government but of the Power Submit to every Ordinance of man c. the ground of Submission is not the form but the power of civil government and therefore there can be no opposition expressed here between the Forms of Civil and Ecclesiastical government but if any such opposition be it must be between the powers and if this be said as to civils that the power is an Ordinance of Man in that sense whereas Paul saith it is of God yet as to the Church it is freely acknowledged that the Power is derived from God Secondly The civil power is not called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 because it is a creature of mans making and so subject to mens power but the ground of that Speech is because all civil power respects men as men without any further connotation Humana dicitur non quod ab hominibus sit excogitata sed quod hominum sit propria saith Beza And to the same purpose Calvin Humana dicitur Ordinatio non quod humanitùs inventa fuerit sed quod propria hominum est digesta ordinata vivendi ratio Piscator Humanam appellat non quod magistratus homines authores habeat sed quod Homines eam gerant So then the civil power is not called an Ordinance of man as it is of mans setting up but as it is proper to man and so if there be any opposition between the civil and Church power it is onely this that the one belongs to men as men the other to men as Christians Thirdly Although it be granted that Christ hath appointed and set up his own Officers in his Church yet it doth not thence follow that he hath determined in what manner they shall Rule his Church It is true Christ hath set up in his Church some Apostles some
Evangelists and some Pastours and Teachers but it doth not thence follow that Christ hath determined whether the Power of Apostles and Evangelists should continue in his Church or no as it implied Superiority over the ordinary Pastors of the Churches nor whether the Pastors of the Church should act in an equality in their Governing Churches I grant that all Church-Government must be performed by Officers of Christs appointing but that which I say is not determined in Scripture is the way and manner whereby they shall Govern Churches in common It is yet further argued That if the Form of Church Government be not immutably determined in Scripture then it is in the Churches Power to make new Officers which Christ never made which must be a plain addition to the Lawes of Christ and must argue the Scripture of Imperfection This being one of the main Arguments I have reserved it to the place of the Triarii and shall now examine what strength there lies in it To this therefore I answer First Those Officers are onely said to be new which were never appointed by Christ and are contrary to the first appointments of Christ for the Regulating of his Church such it is granted the Church hath no power to institute but if by new Officers be meant onely such as have a charge over more then one particular congregation by the consent of the Pastours themselves then it is evident such an Office cannot be said to be new For besides the general practice of the Church of God from the first Primitive times which have all consented in the use of such Officers we finde the Foundation of this Power laid by Christ himself in the Power which the Apostles were invested in which was extended over many both Churches and Pastours But if it be said The Apostolical Power being extraordinary must cease with the persons which enjoyed it I answer First What was extraordinary did cease but all the Dispute is what was extraordinary and what not some things were ordinary in them as Preaching Baptizing Ordaining Ruling Churches some things were again extraordinary as immediate mission from Christ the main distinguishing Note of an Apostle a Power of working Miracles to confirm the Truth of what they Preached Now the Question is whether the power which they enjoyed over Presbyters and Churches be to be reckoned in the first or the second number It must therefore be proved to be extraordinary before it can be said to cease with them and that must be done by some Arguments proper to their persons for if the Arguments brought be of a common and moral Nature it will prove the Office to be so too Secondly By ceasing may be meant either ceasing as to its necessity or ceasing as to its lawfulness I say not but that the necessity of the Office as in their persons for the first Preaching and propagating the Gospel did cease with them but that after their death it became unlawful for any particular persons to take the care and charge of Diocesan Churches I deny For to make a thing unlawfull which was before lawfull there must be some expresse prohibition forbidding any further use of such a power which I suppose men will not easily produce in the Word of God I answer therefore Secondly That the extending of any Ministerial power is not the appointing of any New Office because every Minister of the Gospel hath a Relation in actu primo to the whole Church of God the restraint and inlargement of which power is subject to Positive Determinations of prudence and conveniency in actu secundo and therefore if the Church see it fit for some men to have this power enlarged for better government in some and restrained in others that inlargement is the appointing no new Office but the making use of a power already enjoyed for the benefit of the Church of God This being a Foundation tending so fully to clear the lawfulnesse of that Government in the Church which implies a superiority and subordination of the Officers of the Church to one another and the Churches using her prudence in ordering the bounds of her Officers I shall do these two things First Shew that the power of every Minister of the Gospel doth primarily and habitually respect the Church in common Secondly that the Church may in a peculiar manner single out some of its Officers for the due Administration of Ecclesiastical power First that every Minister of the Gospel hath a power respecting the Church in common This I find fully and largely proved by those who assert the equality of the power of Ministers First from Christs bestowing the several Offices of the Church for the use of the whole Church Ephesians 4. 12 13. Christ hath set Apostles c. Pastours and Teachers in his Church now this Church must needs be the catholicke visible Church because indisputably the Apostles Office did relate thereto and consequently so must that of Pastours and Teachers too Again the end of these Offices is the building up the Body of Christ which cannot otherwise be understood then of his whole Church else Christ must have as many Bodies as the Church hath partiticular congregations Which is a new way of Consubstantiation Secondly The Ministerial Office was in being before any particular congregations were gathered For Christ upon his Ascension to Glory gave these Gifts to men and the Apostles were impowered by Christ before his Ascension Either then they were no Church Officers or if they were so they could have no other Correlate but the whole body of the Church of God then lying under the power of Darkness a few persons excepted Thirdly Because the main Designe of appointing a Gospel Ministry was the conversion of Heathens and Infidels and if these be the proper Object of the Ministerial Function then the Office must have reference to the whole Church of Christ else there could be no part of that Office performed towards those who are not yet converted Fourthly Else a Minister can perform no office belonging to him as such beyond the bounds of his particular congregation and so can neither Preach nor Administer the Sacraments to any other but within the Bounds of his own particular place and people Fifthly Because Ministers by Baptizing do admit men into the catholike visible Church else a man must be baptized again every time he removes from one Church to another and none can admit beyond what their office doth extend to therefore it is evident that every particular Pastor of a Church hath a Relation to the whole Church To which purpose our former observation is of great use viz. That particular congregations are not of Gods primary intention but for mens conveniency and so consequently is the fixedness of particular Pastors to their several places for the greater conveniency of the Church every Pastor of a Church then hath a Relation to the whole Church and that which hinders him from the
from whom they derived their power and by whose authority they acted And these were the most suitable to them as making it appear that a Divine presence went along with them and therefore they could not salsifie to the world in what they Declared unto them which was the best way for them to evidence the Truth of their Doctrine because it was not to be discovered by the Evidence of the things themselves but it depended upon the Testimony of the Authour and therefore the onely way to confirm the truth of the Doctrine was to confirm the credibility of the Authour which was best done by doing something above what the power of nature could reach unto And this was the prerogative of the Apostles in their first mission above Iohn the Baptist For of him it is said that he did no miracle Fourthly we observe that the Apostles in this mission were invested in no power over the Church nor in any Superiority of Order one over another The first is evident because Christ did not now send them abroad to gather Churches but onely to call persons to the Doctrine of the Messias and while Christ was in the World among them he retained all Church power and authority in his own hand When this temporary mission expired the Apostles lived as private persons still under Christs Tutorage and we never read them acting in the least as church-Church-Officers all that while Which may appear from this one argument because all the time of our Saviours being in the World he never made a total separation from the Iewish Church but frequented with his Disciples the Temple worship and Service to the last although he super-added many Gospel Observations to those of the Law And therefore when no Churches were gathered the Apostles could have no Church power over them All that can be pleaded then in order to Church-Government from the consideration of the Form of Government as setled by our Saviour must be either from a supposed inequality among the Apostles themselves or their superiority over the LXX Disciples or from some Rules laid down by Christ in order to the Government of his Church of which two are the most insisted on Matthew 20. 25. Matth. 18. 17. Of these in their Order The first argument drawn for an established form of Government in the Church from the state of the Apostles under Christ is from a supposed inequality among the Apostles and the superiority of one as Monarch of the Church which is the Papists Plea from Saint Peter as the chief and head of the Apostles Whose loud Exclamations for Saint Peters authority aâ—â— much of the same nature with those of Demetrius the Silver-Smith at Ephesus with his fellow craftsmen who cried up Great is Diana of the Ephesians not from the honor they bore to her as Diana but from the gain which came to them from her worship at Ephesus But I dispute not now the entail of Saint Peters power what ever it was to the Roman Bishop but I onely inquire into the Pleas drawn for his authority from the Scriptures which are written in so small a character that without the spectacles of an implicite Faith they will scarce appear legible to the Eyes of men For what though Christ changed Saint Peters name must it therefore follow that Christ baptized him Monarch of his Church Were not Iohn and Iames called by Christ Boanerges and yet who thinks that those sons of Thunder must therefore overturn all other power but their own Christ gave them new names to shew his own authority over them and not their authority over others to be as Monitors of their Duty and not as Instruments to convey power So Chrysostome speaks of the very name Peter given to Simon it was to shew him his duty of being fixed and stable in the Faith of Christ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 this name might be as a string upon his finger a continual remembrancer of his duty And likewise I conceive as an incouragement to him after his fall that he should recover his former stability again else it should seem strange that he alone of the Apostles should have his name from firmness and stability who fell the soonest and the foulest of any of the Apostles unlesse it were 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which would be worse Divinity then Rhetorick The change then of St Peters name imports no such Universall Power neither from the change nor from the name But why then hath Saint Peter the honour to be named first of all the Apostles First it seems to be implyed as an honour given to Peter above the rest But doth all honour carry an Universal power along with it there may be order certainly among equals and there may be first second and third c. where there is no imparity and jurisdiction in the first over all the rest Primacy of Order as among equals I know none will deny Saint Peter A Primacy of Power as over Inferiours I know none will grant but such as have subdued their Reason to their Passion and Interest Nay a further Order then of mâ—er place may without danger be attributed to him A Primacy in Order of Time as being of the first called and it may be the first who adhered to Christ in Order of Age of which Ierome aetati delatum quia Petrus senior erat speaking of Peter and Iohn nay yet higher some Order of Dignity too in regard of his 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which the Greek Fathers speak so much of the servency and heat of his spirit whence by Eusebius he is called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Prolocutor among the Apostles who was therefore most forward to inquire most ready to answer which Chrysostome elegantly calls 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 alluding to the name 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which are frequently given to Peter by the Fathers which import no more then praesultor in choreâ he that that led the dance among the Disciples but his being 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 implies no Superiority of Power For Dyonys Haliarnass calls Appius Claâ—dius 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 whereas all know that the Decemviri had an equality of power among themselves Neither doth his being as the mouth of the Disciples imply his power For Aaron was a mouth to Moses but Moses was Aarons Master Neither yet doth this Primacy of Order alwayes hold in reference to Peter For although generally he is named first of the Aposties as Matthew 10. 2. Mark 3. 16. Acts 1. 13. Mark 1. 36. Luk 8. 45. Acts 2. 14. 37. Yet in other places of Scripture we finde other Apostles set in Order before him as Iames Galat. 2. 9. Paul and Apollos and others 1 Cor. 3. 22. 1 Cor. 1. 12. 9. 5. No Argument then can be drawn hence if it would hold but onely a Primacy of Order and yet even that fails too in the Scriptures changing of the Order so often
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-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
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-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
therefore inforceth this Law upon them in case of offences first to deal plainly with their Neighbour in reproving him but our Saviour rests not here but being himself a pattern of Meeknesse and Charity he would not have them to rest in a bare private admonition but to shew their own readinesse to be reconciled and willingnesse to do good to the Soul of the offending party thereby he adviseth further to take two or three witnesses with them hoping thereby to work more upon him but if still he continues refractory and is not sensible of his miscarriage Tell it the Church What the Church here is is the great Controversie Some as Beza and his followers understand an Ecclesiastical Sanhedrin among the Jews which had the proper cognizance of Ecclesiastical causes but it will be hard to prove any such Sanhedrin in use among them the Priests and Levites indeed were very often chosen into the Sanhedrin which it may be is the ground of the mistake but there was no such Sanhedrin among them which did not respect matters criminal and civil So we must understand what Iosephus speaks of the Priests among the Jews 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Priests were alwayes very studious of the Law and other matters of concernment These were appointed as the Overseers of all things Iudges of Controversies and the punishers of condemned persons Thus we see he is so far from attributing a distinct Ecclesiastical Court to them that he seems to make them the only Judges in civil and criminal causes Others by the Church understand the Christian Church but herein they are divided some understanding by it only the Officers of the Church so Chrysostome 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Euthemius Ecclesiam nunc vocat prasides fidelium Ecclesiae Others understand it not in its representative notion but in its diffusive capacity as taking in all the members But our Saviour speaking to a present case must be supposed to lay down a present remedy which could not be if he gave only Rules for governing his Church which was not as yet gathered nor formed there being then no Court Ecclesiastical for them to appeal unto Suppose then this case to have fallen out immediately after our Saviours speaking it that one brother should trespasse against another either then notwithstanding our Saviours Speech which speaks to the present time Go and tell the Church the offended brother is left without a power of redresse or he must understand it in some sense of the word Church which was then in use among the Jews And these who tell us That unless 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 be understood for a Church as we understand it it would be no easie matter for us now to conceive what the Holy Ghost meant by it would do well withall to consider how those to whom Christ spoke should apprehend his meaning if he spoke in a sense they never heard of before And certainly our best way to understand the meaning of Scripture is to consider what of whom to whom the Scripture speaks for although the Scripture as a Rule of Faith for us be supposed to be so written as to be easily understood by us yet as the parcels of it were spoken upon several Occasions they must be supposed to be so spoken as to be apprehended by them to whom they were spoken in the common senss of the words if nothing peculiar be expressed in the Speech whereby to restrain them to another sense And therefore the Church must be understood in the same sense wherein the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or the Syriack answering to it was apprehended among the Jewes in our Saviours time Which could not be for any new Consistory or Sanhedrin to be erected under the Gospel Thence others conceiving that Christ did speak according to the Custome of the Jewes by the Church understand nothing else but the Sanhedrin and so make the sense of the words to be this The Case our Saviour speaks to is that of private Quarrels wherein our Saviour layes down two Directions in a way of Charity private admonition and before witnesses but if the party continues refractory then it may be lawful to convent him before the Courts of Judicature among them the Triumvirate the 23. or the great Sanhedrin for although the Romans had taken away the power of the Iewes in Capital matters yet they allowed them liberty of judgeing in the case of private quarrels but if he neglect to hear the Sanhedrin then it may be lawful to implead him before the Governour of the Province in his Court of Judicature by which Heathens and Publicans were to be judged which is meant by Let him be to thee not as a brother Jew but as a Heathen and a Publican This Exposition is said to be first Broached by Erastus but much improved and enlarged by Reverend Bishop Bilson who spends a whole Chapter upon it But this Exposition though it seems fair and plausible yet there are several things in it which keep me from imbracing it as First It seems not very probable that our Saviour should send his Disciples to whom he speaks to the Jewish Sanhedrin for the ending any Controversies arising among themselves knowing how bitter Enemies they wer to all who were the followers of Christ. Secondly it seems not very agreeable with the scope of our Saviours Speech which was to take up differences as much as may be among his Disciples and to make them shew all lenity and forherance towards those that had offended them and to do good to the Souls of those that had injured and provoked them whereas this command of telling the Sanhedrin and inpleading offendors before Heathen Courts tends apparently to heighten the bitterness and animosities of Mens spirits one against another and layes Religion so open to Obloquies which makes Paul so severely reprove the Christians at Corinth for going to Law before Heathen Magistrates therefore to say that Christ allows there going to Law before Heathens and Paul to forbid it were instead of finding a way to end the differences among Christians to make one between Christ and Paul Thirdly the thing chiefly aimed at by Christ is not a mans Vindication of himself or recovering losses by injuries received but the recovering and gaining the offending brother which evidently appears by what our Saviour adds to the using admonition in private If he shall hear thee thou hast gained thy brother Now 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the New Testament is used for the Conversion and turning others from sin That I might gain them that are under the Law 1 Corinth 9. 19 20 c. So 1 Pet. 3. 1. explained by Iames 5. 20. Our Saviour then speaks not to the manner of proceeding as to civil injuries which call for Restitution but to such as call for Reconciliation And so the Case I conceive is that of private Differences and Quarrels between men and not Law-Suites nor civil Causes I
mean such Differences as respect persons and not things which our Saviour layes down these Rules for the ending of And therefore I cannot but wonder to see some men insist so much on that place against such an Exposition of this Luke 12. 14. where Christ saith Who made me a Iudge and a Divider among you For doth it any wayes follow Because Christ would not take upon him to be a temporal Judge among the Jewes therefore he should take no course for the ending differences among his Disciples and the taking away all animosities from among them Nay on the contrary doth not our Saviour very often designedly speak to this very purpose to root out all bitterness malice envy and rancour from mens spirits and to perswade them to forgive injuries even to pray for persecutours and by any means to be reconciled to their Brethren Which he makes to be a Duty of so great necessity that if a man had brought his gift to the Altar and remembred his brother had ought against him he bids him leave his gift there and go be reconciled to his Brother and then offer up the Gift We see hereby how suitable it was to our Saviours Doctrine and Design to lay down Rules for the ending of any differences arising among his Disciples and this being now cleared to be the state of the Case it will not be difficult to resolve what is meant by telling the Church Which I make not to be any appeal to a juridical court acting authoritatively over the persons brought before it but the third and highest step of Charity in a man towards a person that hath offended him viz. That when neither private admonition nor before two or three witnesses would serve to reclaim the offendor then to call a select company together which is the Natural importance of the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and before them all to lay open the cause of the breach and difference between them and to refer it to their Arbitration to compose and end it Which Sense of the place I humbly conceive to have the least force in it and in every part of it to be most genuine and natural and fully agreeable to the received practice among the Jewes which the Author of the Book Musar cited by Drusius fully acquaints us with whose words I shall Transcribe as being a plain Paraphrase on these of our Saviour Qui arguit socium suum debet primum hoc facere placide inter se ipsum solum verbis mollibus ita ut non pudefaciat eum Si resipiscit bene est sin debet eum acritèr arguere pudefacere inter se ipsum Si non resipiscit debet adhibere socios ipsumque coram illis pudore afficere si nec modo quicquam proficit debet eum pudefacere coram multis ejusque delictum publicare Nam certe detegendi sunt hypocritae That which this Authour calls pudefacere eum coram multis is that which our Saviour means when he bids him tell the Church or the Congregation as our Old Translation renders it This the Jews called reproving of men 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 before a multitude as the Vulg. Latin though falsly renders that place Lâ—viticus 19. 17. publicè argue eum and to this the Apostle may allude when he speaks of the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 2 Corinth 2. 6. censure of many and the reproof 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 before all 1 Tim. 5. 20. which was to be in matters of publike scandal upon Religion 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as the Jewes call them but in case the offendor should still 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 slight this overture of Reconciliation before the company selected for hearing the Case then saith our Saviour look upon him as an obstinate refractory creature and have no more to do with him then with a Heathen and a Publican by which terms the most wilful obstinate sinners were set out among the Jewes and by which our Saviour means a mans withdrawing himself as much as in him lies from all familiar society with such a person And thus saith Christ Whatsoever you bind in Earth shall be bound in Heaven and whatsoever you loose on Earth shall be loosed in Heaven v. 18. that is If after all your endeavours of Reconciliation the offender will hearken to no agreement it is an evidence and token that mars sin is bound upon him that is shall not be pardoned so long as he continues impenitent but if he repent of his offence and you be reconciled as the offence is removed on Earth thereby so the sin is loosed in Heaven that is forgiven The guilt of sin that binds it being an Obligation to punishment and so the pardon of sin that looseth as it cancels that Obligation And so Grotius observes that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is the same with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 what is called retaining in one place is binding in another and what is loosing in one place is remitting in the other But now although I assert this to be the true proper genuine meaning of this difficult place yet I deny not but that this place hath influence upon Church-Government but I say the influence it hath is onely by way of Accommodation and by Analogy deduced from it According to which these things I conceive have Foundation in these words First gradual appeals from the Method here laid down by our Saviour Secondly Church censures and the Duty of submitting to Church-authority For although before any Church Power was actually set up as when our Saviour spake these words then there was none yet after that Church-Government was fixed and set up it must in Reason be supposed that all matters of the Nature of scandals to the Church must be decided there Thirdly The lawfulness of the Use of excommunication in Christian Churches for if every particular person might withdraw from the Society of such a one as continues refractory in his Offences then much more may a whole Society and the Officers of it declare such a one to be avoided both in religious and familiar civil Society which is the formal Nature of Excommunication Herein we see the wisdom of our Saviour who in speaking to a particular case hath laid down such general Rules as are of perpetual use in the Church of God for accommodating differences arising therein Thus have we hitherto cleared that our Saviour hath determined no more of Church-Govern-ment then what is appliable to a diversity of particular Forms and so hath not by any Law or practice of his own determined the necessity of any one form CHAP. VI. The next thing pleaded for determining the Form of Government is Apostolical practice two things inquired into concerning that What it was How far it binds The Apostles invested with the power and authority of Governing the whole Church of Christ by their Commission Io. 20. 21. Matth.
28. 18. What the Apostles did in order to the Church Government before Pentecost 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 explained How the Apostles did divide Provinces whether Paul and Peter were confined to the circumcision and uncircumcision and different Churches erected by them in the same Cities What the Apostles did in order to settling particular Churches The Names and Office of Bishops Presbyters Deacons considered Four general Considerations laid down about the Apostles practice First It cannot be fully known what is was 2. Great probability they observe no one certain Form in setling Churches proved from Epiphanius Ierome Ambrose or Hilary 3. Their Case different from ours in regard of the paucity of Believers 4. If granted for any Form yet proves not the thing in question For 1. Offices appointed by them are ceased Widdows Deaconesses abolished 2. Rites and Customs Apostolical grown out of use 1. Such as were founded upon Apostolical Precepts Acts 15. 29. considered 2. Such as were grounded on their practice Holy kiss Love-feasts dipping in Baptism community of goods with several others HAving found nothing either in our Saviours practice or in the rules laid down by him conceived to respect Church-Government which determines any necessity of one particular Form the onely argument remaining which can be conceived of sufficient strength to found the necessity of any one form of Government is the practice of the Apostles who were by their imployment and commission entrusted with the Government of the Church of God For our Saviour after his Resurrection taking care for the Planting and Governing of his Church after his Ascension to Glory doth at two several times call his Apostles together and gives now their full Charter and Commission to them the first containing chiefly the power it self conferred upon them Iohn 20. 21. The other the Extent of that power Matth. 28. 19. In the former our Saviour tells them As the Father had sent him so did he send them Which we must not understand of a parity and equality of Power but in a similitude of the mission that as Christ before had managed the great affairs of his Church in his own Person so now having according to the Prophecies made of him at the end of seventy weeks made Reconciliation for iniquity by his Death and brought in everlasting Righteousness by his Resurrection He dispatcheth abroad his Gospel Heralds to proclaim the Iubilee now begun and the Act of Indempnity now past upon all penitent Offendors which is the Sense of the other part of their Commission Whosoever sins ye remit they are remitted and whosoever sins ye retain they are retained John 20. 23. i. e. as many as upon the Preaching the Gospel by you shall come in and yield up themselves to the tenders of Grace proclaimed therein shall have their former Rebellions pardoned but such as will still continue obstinate their former guilt shall still continue to bind them over to deserved punishment And to the end the Apostles might have some Evidence of the power thus conferred upon them He breathes the Holy Ghost on them and said Receive ye the Holy Ghost which we are not to understand of the Extraordinary gifts of the Holy Ghost which were not received till the day of Pentecost Act. 2. 1. but of the Authoritative power of preaching the Gospel which was now conferred upon them by the solemn Rite of breathing the Holy Ghost on the Apostles In which Sense the Church of England understands that Expression in the Ordination of Ministers as it implies onely the conferring thereby an authority for the preaching of the Gospel which being conveyed by Ordination is fitly expressed by the same wordâ— which our Saviour used in the conferring the same Power upon his Apostles at his sending them forth to be Gospel-Preachers After this comes the solemn appointed meeting of Christ with his Disciples at the mountain of Galilee where in probability besides the eleven were present the five hundered Brethren at once And here Christ more solemnly inaugurates the Apostles in their Office declaring all power to be in his hands and therefore appoints the Apostles to preach the Gospel to every creature that is to all men indefinitely Gentiles as well as Jewes which Matthew fully expresseth by all Nations Now are the Apostles left as chief Governours of the Church under Christ and in this last Commission wherein the extent of the Apostles power is more fully expressed there is nothing mentioned of any order for the Government of the Church under them not what course should be taken by the Church after their decease All that remains then to be inquired into is what the Apostles practice was and how far they acted for the determining any one form of Government as necessary for the Church The Apostles being thus invested in their authority we proceed to consider the Exercise of this authority for the Governing of the Church And here we are to consider that the Apostles did not presently upon their last Commission from Christ goe forth abroad in the World to Preach but were commanded by Christ to go first to Ierusalem and there to expect the coming of the Holy Ghost according to our Saviours own appointment Luke 24. 49. And therefore what Mark adds Mark 16. 20. that after Christs appearance to them the Apostles went abroad and preached every where working Miracles must either be understood of what they did onely in their way returning from Galile oo Ierusalem or else more probably of what they did indefinitely afterwarps For presently after we find them met together at Ierusalem whence they came from Mount Olivet where Christs Ascension was Here we find them imployed 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 saith Saint Luke in his Gospel which we render the Temple but I understand it rather as referring to the action than the place and is best explained by what Luke saith in Acts 1. 14. they were 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 continuing in Prayer and Supplication And that it cannot be meant of the Temple appears by the mention of the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 an upper room where they continued together For that it should be meant of any of the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 about the Temple is most improbable to conceive because not only those ninty Cells about the Temple were destined and appointed for the Priests in their several 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or times of Ministration and it is most unlikely the chief Priests and Masters of the Temple should suffer those whom they hated so much to continue â—o near them without any molestation or disturbance While the Apostles continue here they proceed to the choice of a new Apostle instead of Iudas thereby making it appear now necessary that number was to the first forming of Churches when the vacant place must be supplyed with so great solemnity Which office of Apostleship which Iudas once had and Matthias was now chosen into is call'd by Peter
that there was a peculiar Government belonging to the Synagogue distinct from the civil Judicatures Having thus far proceeded in clearing that there was a peculiar Form of Government in the Synagogue we now inquire what that was and by what Law and Rule it was observed The Government of the Synagogue either relates to the Publick Service of God in it or the publick Rule of it as a society As for the Service of God to be performed in it as there were many parts of it so there were many Officers peculiarly appointed for it The main part of publick service lay in the Reading and Expounding the Scriptures For both the known place of Philo will give us light for understanding them 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Coming to their Holy places called Synagogues they sit down in convenient order acâ—â—â—ding to their several Forms ready to hear the young under 〈…〉 der then one taketh the Book and readeth another of those best skilled comes after and expounds it For so Grotius reads it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 out of Eusebius We see two several Offices here the one of the Reader in the Synagogue the other of him that did interpret what was read Great difference I find among Learned men about the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of the Synagogue some by him understand the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 called sometimes in Scripture 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and so make him the under Reader in the Synagogue and hence I suppose it is and not from looking to the poor which was the Office of the Parnasim that the Office of Deacons in the Primitive Church is supposed to be answerable to the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 among the Jewes for the Deacons Office in the Church was the publick Reading of the Scriptures And hence Epiphanius parallels the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 among the Jewes to the Bishop Presbyters and Deacons among the Christians But others make the Office of the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to be of a higher nature not to be taken for the Reader himself for that was no office but upon every Sabbath day seven were call'd out to do that work as Buxtorf tells us first a Priest then a Levite and after any five of the people and these had every one their set-parts in every Section to read which are still marked by the numbers in some Bibles But the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 was he that did call out every one of these in their order to read and did observe their reading whether they did it exactly or no. So Buxtorf speaking of the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Hic maximè oratione sive precibus cantu Ecclesiâ— praeibat praeerat lectioni legali docens quod quomodo legendum similibus quae ad sacra pertinebant So that according to him the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 was the Superintendent of all the publick service thence others make him parallel to him they call'd 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Angel of the Church Legatus Ecclesiae L'Empereur renders it as though the name were imposed on him as acting in the name of the Church which could only be in offering up publick prayers but he was Angelus Dei as he was inspector Ecclesiae because the Angels are supposed to be more immediately present in and Supervisors over the publick place and duties of worship see 1 Cor. 11. 10. this 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is by L'Empereur often rendred Concionator Synagogae as though it belonged to him to expound the meaning of what was read in the Synagogue but he that did that was call'd 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 from 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to enquire thence 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the enquirer or disputer of this world thence R. Moses Haddarsan but it is in vain to seek for several Offices from several Names nay it seems not evident that there was any set-set-Officers in the Jewish Church for expounding Scriptures in all Synagogues or at least not so fixed but that any one that enjoyed any repute for Religion or knowledge in the Law was allowed a free liberty of speaking for the instruction of the people as we see in Christ and his Apostles for the Rulers of the Synagogue sent to Paul and Barnabas after the reading of the Law that if they had any word of exhortation they should speak on From hence it is evident there were more then one who had rule over the Synagogues they being call'd Rulers here It seems very probable that in every City where there were ten wise men as there were supposed to be in every place where there was a Synagogue that they did all jointly concurr for the ruling the affairs of the Synagogue But what the distinct Offices of all these were it is hard to make out but all joyning together seem to make the Consistory or Bench as some call it which did unanimously moderate the affairs of the Synagogue whose manner of sitting in the Synagogues is thus described by Mr. Thorndike out of Maimonides whose words are these How sit the people in the Synagogue The Elders sit with their faces towards the people and their backs towards the Heâ—all the place where they lay the Copy of the Law and all the people sit rank before rank the face of every rank towards the back of the rank before it so the faces of all the people are towards the Sanctuary and towards the Elders and towards the Ark and when the Minister of the Synagogue standeth up to prayer he standeth on the ground before the Ark with his face to the Sanctuary as the rest of the people Several things are observable to our purpose in this Testimony of Maimonides First That there were so many Elders in the Synagogue as to make a Bench or Consistory and therefore had a place by themselves as the Governours of the Synagogue And the truth is after their dispersion we shall find little Government among them but what was in their Synagogues unlesse it was where they had liberty for erecting Schools of Learning Besides this Colledge of Presbyters we here see the publick Minister of the Synagogue the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. e. Episcopus congregationis the Superintendent over the Congregation whose peculiar office it was to pray for and to blesse the people We are here further to take notice of the form of their sitting in the Synagogues The Presbyters sat together upon a Bench by themselves with their faces towards the people which was in an Hemicycle the form wherein all the Courts of Judicature among them sat which is fully described by Mr. Selden and Mr. Thorndike in the places above-cited This was afterwards the form wherein the Bishops and Presbyters used to sit in the primitive Church as the last named learned Author largely observes and proves Besides this Colledge of Presbyters there seems to be one particularly
call'd the Ruler of the Synagogue 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the Scriptures 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which in the importance of the New Testament Greek following that of the Alexandrian Iews in the version of the Old Testament implyes no more then a primacy of order in him above the rest he was joyned with And thence sometimes we read of them in the Plural number 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Acts 13. 15. implying thereby an equality of power in many but by reason of the necessary primacy of one in order above the rest the name may be appropriated to the President of the Colledge Acts 18. 8 17. we read of two viz. Crispus and Sosthenes and either of them is call'd 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which could not be did the name import any peculiar power of Jurisdiction lodged in one exclusive of the rest unlesse we make them to be of two Synagogues which we have no evidence at all for I confesse Beza his argument from 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Mark 5. 22. for a multitude of those so call'd in the same Synagogue is of no great force where we may probably suppose there were many Synagogues But where there is no evidence of more then one in a place and we find the name attributed to more then one we have ground to think that there is nothing of power or Jurisdiction in that one which is not common to more besides himself But granting some peculiarity of honour belonging to one above the rest in a Synagogue which in some places I see no great reason to to deny yet that implyes not any power over and above the Bench of which he was a Member though the first in order Much as the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Prince of the Sanhedrin whose place imported no power peculiar to himself but only a Priority of dignity in himself above his fellow Senators as the Princeps Senatûs in the Roman Republick answering to the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the great Sanhedrin who was next to the Nasi as the Princeps Senatûs to the Consuls which was only a Honorary Dignity and nothing else Under which disguise that Politick Prince Augustus ravished the Roman Commonwealth of its former liberty The name 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 may I suppose in propriety of speech be rendred in Latin Magister ordinis he being by his Office Praesul a name not originally importing any power but only dignity Those whom the Greeks call 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Latins render Magistros sui ordinis and so Suetonius interprets 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by Magisterium sacerdotii They who meet then with the name Archisynagogues either in Lampridius Vopiscus Codex Theodosii Iustinians Novels in all whom it occurs and in some places as distinct from Presbyters will learn to understand thereby only the highest honour in the Synagogue considering how little yea nothing of power the Jews enjoyed under either the Heathen or Christian Emperours One thing more we add touching this honour of the Rulers of the Synagogue among the Jews that whatever honour title power or dignity is imported by that name it came not from any Law enforcing or commanding it but from mutual conâ—oederation and agreement among the persons imployed in the Synagogue whose natural reason did dictate that where many have an equality of power it is most convenient by way of accumulation upon that person of a power more then he had but not by deprivation of themselves of that inherent power which they enjoyed to entrust the management of the executive part of affairs of common concernment to one person specially chosen and deputed thereunto So it was in all the Sanhedrins among the Jews and in all well-ordered Senates and Councils in the World And it would be very strange that any Officers of a religious Society should upon that account be out-Lawed of those natural Liberties which are the results and products of the free actings of Reason Which things as I have already observed God hath looked on to be so natural to man as when he was most strict and punctual in ceremonial Commands he yet left these things wholly at liberty For we read not of any command that in the Sanhedrin one should have some peculiarity of honour above the rest this mens natural reason would prompt them to by reason of a necessary priority of Order in some above others which the very instinct of Nature hath taught irrational creatures much more should the Light of Reason direct men to But yet all order is not power nor all power juridical nor all juridical power a sole power therefore it is a meer Paralogism in any from Order to inferr power or from a delegated power by consent to inferr a juridical power by Divine Right or lastly from a power in common with others to deduce a power excluding others All which they are guilty of who meerly from the name of an Archisynagogue would fetch a perpetual necessity of jurisdiction in one above the Elders joyned with him or from the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the Sanhedrin a power of a sole Ordination in one without the consent of his fellow Senators But of these afterwards Thus much may suffice for a draught in little of the Government of the Jewish Synagogue Having thus far represented the Jewish Synagogue that the Idea of its government may be formed in our understandings we now come to consider how far and in what the Apostles in forming Christian Churches did follow the pattern of the Jewish Synagogue Which is a notion not yet so far improved as I conceive it may be and I know no one more conducible to the happy end of composing our differences touching the government of the Church then this is I shall therefore for the full clearing of it premise some general considerations to make way for the entertainment of this hypothesis in mens minds at least as probable and then endeavour particularly to shew how the Apostles did observe the model of the Synagogue in its publike service in ordination of Church Officers in forming Presbyteries in the several Churches in ruling and governing those Presbyteries The general consideration I premise to shew the probability of what I am asserting shall be from these things from the community of name and customs between the believing Iews and others at the first forming of Churches from the Apostles forming Churches out of Synagogues in their travelling abroad from the agreeablenesse of that model of Government to the State of the Christian Churches at that time I begin with the first From the community of names and customs between the believing and unbelieving Iews at the first forming Churches All the while our blessed Saviour was living in the World Christ and his Disciples went still under the name of Jews they neither renounced the name nor the customs in use among them Our Saviour goes up to the
let us see them at large Unto the Brethren which are of the Gentiles in Antioch and Syria and Cilicia There was nothing then peculiar to those of the Gentiles at Antioch more then in Syria and Cilicia and if those words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 imply a Coetus distinct of Gentile-Christians from the Jews at Antioch it must do so through all Syria and Cilicia which was Pauls Province and not Peters as appears by his travels in the Acts. Eâ—theâ— then the Apostle of the uncircumcision must form distinct Churches of Iews and Gentiles in his preaching through Syria and Silicia which is irreconcilable with the former pretence of distinct Provinces asserted by the same Author who pleads for distinct Coetus or the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 can imply no such thing as a distinct Church of Gentiles to whomsover it is spoken and so not at Antioch more then through all Syria and Silicia The plain ground then of the Apostles inscribing the order of the Council to the Brethren of the Gentiles was because the matter of that Order did particularly concern them and not the Jews as is obvious to any that will but cast an eye upon the 23 24 29. verses of the 15. of the Acts. As well might then an order supposed from the Apostles to the several Pastors of the Churches in things concerning them as such imply that they make distinct Churches from their people as this order concerning the Gentile Brethren being therefore directed to them doth imply their making distinct Churches from the Jewish Brethren in the Cities where they lived together What is further produced out of Antiquity to this purpose hath neither evidence nor pertinency enough to stop the passage of one who is returning from this digression to his former matter Although then we grant not any such distinct Coetus of the Jews from the Christians yet that hinders not but that both Jews and Christians joyning together in one Church might retain still the Synagogue form of Government among them which there was no reason at all why the Christians should scruple the using of either as Jews or Gentiles because it imported nothing either Typical and Ceremonial or heavy and burdensome which were the grounds why former customs in use among the Jews were laid aside by the Christians But instead of that it was most suitable and agreeable to the state of the Churches in Apostolical times which was the third consideration to make it probable that the Synagogue form of Government was used by the Christians And the suitablenesse of this Government to the Churches lay in the conveniency of it for the attaining all ends of Government in that condition wherein the Churches were at that time For Church Officers acting then either in gathering or governing Churches without any authority from Magistrates such a way of Government was most suitable to their several Churches as whereby the Churches might be governed and yet have no dependancy upon the secular power which the way of Government in the Synagogues was most convenient for for the Jews though they enjoyed a bare permission from the civil state where they lived yet by the exercise of their Synagogue Government they were able to order all affairs belonging to the service of God and to keep all members belonging to their several Synagogues in unity and peace among themselves The case was the same as to Synagogues and Churches these subsisted by the same permission which the others enjoyed the end of these was the service of God and preserving that order among them which might best become societies so constituted there can be no reason then assigned why the Apostles in setling particular Churches should not follow the Synagogue in its model of Government These things may suffice to make it appear probable that they did so which is all these considerations tend to Having thus prepared the way by making it probable I now further enquire into the particular part of Government and what orders in the Synagogue were which there is any evidence for that the Apostles did take up and follow Here I begin with the thing first propounded The orders of publick Worship which did much resemble those of the Synagogue Only with those alterations which did arise from the advancing of Christianity That the Christians had their publick and set meetings for the service of God is evident from the first rising of a society constituted upon the account of Christianity We read of the three thousand converted by Peters Sermon That they continued in the Apostles doctrine and fellowship and breaking of bread and prayers Where we have all that was observed in the Synagogue and somewhat more here there is publick joyning together implyed in the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 their solemn prayers expressed which were constantly observed in the Synagogue instead of reading the Sections of the Law and Prophets we have the Apostles teaching by immediate inspiration and to all these as the proper service of Christianity is set down the celebration of the Lords-supper which we shall seldome or ever in the Primitive Church read the publick service on Lords Dayes performed without During the Apostolical times in which there was such a Land-flood of extraordinary gifts overflowing the Church in the publick meeting we find those persons who were indued with those gifts to be much in exercising them as to the custom agreeing with the Synagogue but as to the gifts exceeding it concerning the ordering of which for the publick edification of the Church the Apostle Paul layes down so many Rules in the fourteenth Chapter to the Corinthians but assoon as this flood began to abate which was then necessary for the quicker softening the World for receiving Christianity the publick service began to run in its former channel as is apparent from the unquestionable testimonies of Iustin Martyr and Tertullian who most fully relate to us the order of publick Worship used among the Christians at that time Iustin Martyr the most ancient next to Clemens whose Epistle is lately recovered to the Christian World of the unquestionable Writers of the Primitive Church gives us a clear Narration of the publick Orders observed by the Church in his time 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Upon the Day call'd Sunday all the Christians whether in Town or Country assemble in the same place wherein the Memoires or Commentaries of the Apostles and the writings of the Prophets are read as long as the time will permit Then the Reader sitting down the President of the Assembly stands up and makes a Sermon of Instruction and Exhortation to the following so good Examples After this is ended we all stand up to prayers prayers ended the Bread Wine and Water are all brought forth then the President again praying and praising to his utmost ability the people testifie their consent by saying Amen What could have been spoken with greater congruity or correspondency to the Synagogue abating the
necessary observation of the Bucharist as proper to Christianity Here we have the Scriptures read by one appointed for that purpose as it was in the Synagogue after which follows the word of Exhortation in use among them by the President of the Assembly answering to the Ruler of the Synagogue after this the publick prayers performed by the same President as among the Jews by the publick Minister of the Synagogue as is already observed out of Maimoni then the solemn acclamation of Amen by the people the undoubted practice of the Synagogue To the same purpose Tertullian who if he had been to set forth the practice of the Synagogue could scarce have made choyce of words more accommodated to that purpose Coimus saith he in coetum congregationem ut ad Deum quasi manu factà precationibus ambiamus or antes Cogimur ad divinarum literarum Commemorationem si quid praesentium temporum qualitas aut praemonere cogit aut recognoscere Certè fidem sanctis vocibus pascimus spem erigimus fiâ—uciam figimus disciplinam praeceptorum nihilominus inculcationibus densamus ibidem etiam exhortationes castigationes censura divina Nam judicatur magno cum pondere ut apud certos de Dei conspectu summumque futuri judicii prae judicium est siquis ita deliquerit ut à communicatione orationis conventûs omnis sancti commercii relegetur Prasident probati quique seniores honorem istum non pretio sed testimonio adepti Where we have the same orders for Prayers reading the Scriptures according to occasions and Sermons made out of them for increase of faith raising hope strengthening confidence We have the Discipline of the Church answering the admonitions and excommunication of the Synagogue and last of all we have the Bench of Elders sitting in these Assemblies and ordering the things belonging to them Thus much for the general correspondency between the publick service of the Church and Synagogue they that would see more particulars may read our Learned Mr. Thorndikes Discourse of the service of God in Religious Assemblies Whose design throughout is to make this out more at large But we must only touch at these things by the way as it were look into the Synagogue and go on our way We therefore proceed from their service to their custom of Ordination which was evidently taken up by the Christians from a correspondency to the Synagogue For which we are first to take notice that the Rulers of the Church under the Gospel do not properly succeed the Priests and Levites under the Law whoâ—e Office was Ceremonial and who were not admitted by any solemn Ordination into their Function but succeeded by birth into their places only the great Sanhedrin did judge of their fitnesse as to birth and body before their entrance upon their Function So the Jewish Doctors tell us 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. e. In the stone Parlour the great Sanhedrin of Israel sat and did there judge the Priests The Priest that was found defective put on mourning garments and so went forth he that was not put on white and went in and ministred with the Priests his Brethren And when no fault was found in the sons of Aaron they observed a festival solemnity for it Three things are observable in this Testimony First That the inquiry that was made concerning the Priests was chiefly concerning the purity of their birth and the freedom of their bodies from those defects which the Law mentions unlesse in the case of grosser and more scandalous sins as Idolatry Murther c. by which they were excluded from the Priestly Office The second is That the great Sanhedrin had this inspection over and examination of the Priests before their admission For what that Learned man Const. L'Empereur there conjectures That there was an Ecclesiastical Sanhedrin which did passe judgement on these things is overthrown by the very words of the Talmudists already cited The last thing observable is The garments which the Priests put on viz. white rayment upon his approbation by the Sanhedrin and soon after they were admitted into the Temple with great joy to which our saviour manifestly alludes Revel 3. 4. 5. Thou hast a few names even in Sardis which have not defiled their garments and they shall walk with me in white for they are worthy He that overcometh the same shall be cloathed in white Rayment But the Priests under the Law were never ordained by imposition of hands as the Elders and Rulers of the Synagogue were and if any of them came to that Office they as well as others had peculiar designation and appointment to it It is then a common mistake to think that the Ministers of the Gospel succeed by way of correspondence and Analogy to the Priests under the Law which mistake hath been the foundation and original of many Errors For when in the Primitive Church the name of Priests came to be attributed to Gospel-Ministers from a fair Complyance as was thought then of the Christians onely to the name used both among Jewes and Gentiles in process of time corruptions increasing in the Church those names that were used by the Christians by way of Analogy and Accommodation brought in the things themselves primarily intended by those names so by the Metaphorical names of Priests and Altars at last came up the sacrifice of the Mass without which they thought the names of Priests and Altar were insignificant This mistake we see run all along through the Writers of the Church assoon as the name Priests was applyed to the Elders of the Church that they derived their succession from the Priests of Aarons order Presbyterorum ordo exordium sumpsit à filiis Aaron Qui enim sacerdotes vocabantur in vâ—teri Testamento hi sunt qui nunc appestantur Presbyteri qui nuncupabantur principes sacerdotum nuno Episcopi nominantur as Isidorus and Ivo tell us So before them both Ierome in his known Epistle to Evagrius Et ut sciamus traditiones Apostolicas sumptas de veteri Testamento Quod Aaron filii ejus atque Levitae in Temple fuerunt hoc sibi Episcopi Presbyteri atque Diaconi vendicent in Ecclesia From which words a leoâ—ned Doctor and strenuous assertor of the jus divinum of Prelacy questions not but to make Ierome either apparently contradictious to himself or else to assert that the superiority of Bishops above Presbyters was by his Confession an Apostolical Tradition For saith he Nihil manifestius dici potuit and S. 2. Quid ad hoc responderi possit aut quo 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 artificio deliniri aut deludi tam diserta affirmatio fateor ego â—e divinando assequi non posse sed è contra exiis quae D. Blondellus quae Walo quae Ludov. Capellus hâ—c in re praestiterunt mihi persuasissimum esse Nihil uspiam contra apertaâ— lucem obtendi posse In a case then so desperate
the Jewes as a significative rite in the ordaining the Elders among them and thereby qualifying them either to be members of their Sanhedrins or Teachers of the Law Aâ— twofold use I find of this Symbolical Rite beside the solemn designation of the person on whom the hands are laid The first is to denote the delivery of the person or thing thus laid hands upon for the right use and peculiar service of God And that I suppose was the reason of laying hands upon the Beast under the Law which was to be sacrificed thereby noting their own parting with any right in it and giving it up to be the Lords for a sacrifice to him Thus in the Civill Law this delivery is requisite in the transferring Dominion which they call translatio de manu in manum The second end of laying on of hands was the solemn Iuvocation of the Divine presence and assistance to be upon and with the person upon whom the hands are thus laid For the hands with us being the instruments of action they did by stretching out their hands upon the person represent the efficacy of Divine Power which they implored in behalf of the perâ—on thus designed Tunc enim â—rabant ut sic Dei efficacia esset super illum sicut manus efficaciae symbolum ei imponebatur as Grotius observes Thence in all solemn Prayers wherein any person was particularly designed they made use of this Custome of imposition of Hands from which Custome Augustine speaks Quid aliud est manuum impositio nisi oratio super hominem Thence when Iacob prayed over Iosephs Children he laid his hands upon them so when Moses prayed over Ioshua The practice likewise our Saviour used in blessing Children healing the Sick and the Apostles in conferring the Gifts of the Holy-Ghost and from thence it was conveyed into the practice of the Primitive Church who used it in any more solemn invocation of the name of God in behalf of any particular persons As over the sick upon Repentance and Reconciliation to the Church in Confirmation and in Matrimony which as Grotius observes is to this day used in the Abissine Churches But the most solemn and peculiar use of this Imposition of hands among the Jews was in the designing of any Persons for any publike imployment among them Not as though the bare Imposition of hands did conferre any power upon the Person no more then the bare delivery of a thing in Law gives a legall Title to it without express transferring Dominion with it but with that Ceremony they joyned those words whereby they did confer that Authority upon them Which were to this purpose 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Ecce sis tu Ordinatus or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ego ordino te or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 sis ordinatus to which they added according to the authority they ordained them to some thing peculiarly expressing it whether it was for causes finable or pecuniary or binding and loosing or ruling in the Synagogue Which is a thing deserving consideration by those who use the rite of imposing hands in Ordination without any thing expressing that authority they convey by that Ordination This custome being so generally in use among the Jews in the time when the Apostles were sent forth with Authority for gathering and setling Churches we find them accordingly making use of this according to the former practice either in any more solemn invocation of the presence of God upon any persons or designation and appointing them for any peculiar service or function For we have no ground to think that the Apostles had any peculiar command for laying on their hands upon persons in Prayer over them or Ordination of them But the thing its self being enjoyned them viz. the setting apart some persons for the peculiar work of attendance upon the necessities of the Churches by them planted they took up and made use of a laudable Rite and Custome then in use upon such occasions And so we find the Apostles using it in the solemn designation of some persons to the Office of Deacons answering to the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the Synagogue whose Office was to collect the moneys for the poor and to distribute it among them Afterwards we read it used upon an occasion not heard of in the Synagogue which was for the conferring the gifts of the Holy-Ghost but although the occasion was extraordinary yet supposing the occasion the use of that rite in it was very suitable in as much as those gifts did so much answer to the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which the Jewes conceived did rest upon those who were so ordained by imposition of hands The next time we meet with this rite was upon a peculiar Designation to a particular service of persons already appointed by God for the work of the Ministry which is of Paul and Barnabas by the Prophets and Teachers at Antioch whereby God doth set forth the use of that Rite of Ordination to the Christian Churches Accordingly we find it after practised in the Church Timothy being ordained by the laying on of the hands of the Presbytery And Timothy hath direction given him for the right management of it afterwards Lay hands suddenly on no man For they that would interpret that of reconciling men to the Church by that Rite must first give us Evidence of so early an use of that Custome which doth not yet appear But there is one place commonly brought to prove that the Apostles in Ordaining Elders in the Christian Churches did not observe the Jewish Form of laying on of hands but observed a way quite different from the Jewish practice viz. appointing them by the choice consent and suffrages of the people Which place is Acts 14 23. where it is said of Paul and Barnabas 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 We render it Ordaining them Elders in every Church But others from the signification of the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 would have it rendered When they had appointed Elders by the suffrages of the people But how little the peoples power of Ordination can be inferred from these words will be evident to any one that shall but consider these things First that though 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 did originally signifie the choosing by way of suffrage among the Greeks yet before the time of Lukes writing this the word was used for simple designation without that Ceremony So Hesychius interprets it by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the word used of Titus for ordaining Elders in every City and in Demosthenes and others it occurs for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to decree and appoint and that sense of the word appears in Saint Luke himself Acts 10. 41. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Witnesses foreappointed of God Many examples of this signification are brought by Learned men of Writers before and about the time when Luke Writ
toto orbe decretum ut unus de Presbyteris electus superponeretur caeteris Quomodo enim saith a learned man fieri poâ—uit ut toto hoc orbe decerneretur nullo jam Oecumenico Concilio ad illud decernendum congregaâ—o si non ab Apostolis ipsis fidem toto orbe promulgantibiss cum fide hanc regendi Ecclesias formam constituentibus factum sit So that he conceives so general an order could not be made unless the Apostles themselves at that time were the authors of it But First Ieroms In toto orbe dicretâ—m est relates not to an antecedent order which was the ground of the institution of Episcopacy but to the universal establishment of that order which came up upon the occasion of so many schisms it is something therefore consequent upon the first setting up Episcopacy which is the general obtaining of it in the Churches of Christ when they saw its usefulness in order to the Churches peace therefore the Emphasis lies not in decretum est but in toto orbe noting how suddenly this order met with universal acceptance when it first was brought up in the Church after the Apostles death Which that it was Ieroms meaning appears by what he saith after Paulatim verò ut dissensionum plantaria evellerentur ad unum omnem solicitudinem esse delatam Where he notes the gradual obtaining of it which I suppose was thus according to his opinion first in the Colledge of Presbyters appointed by the Apostles there being a necessity of order there was a President among them who had 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as the President of the Senate i. e. did moderate the affairs of the Assembly by proposing matters to it gathering voices being the first in all matters of concernment but he had not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as Casaubon very well distinguisheth them i. e. had no power over his fellow-Presbyters but that still resided in the Colledge or body of them After this when the Apostles were taken out of the way who kept the main power in their own hands of ruling the several Presbyteries or delegated some to do it who had a main hand in the planting Churches with the Apostles and thence are called in Scripture sometimes Fellow-labourers in the Lord and sometimes Evangelists and by Theodoret Apostles but of a second order after I say these were deceased and the main power left in the Presbyteries the several Presbyters enjoying an equal power among themselves especially being many in one City thereby great occasion was given to many schisms partly by the bandying of the Presbyters one against another partly by the sidings of the people with some against the rest partly by the too common use of the power of ordinations in Presbyters by which they were more able to increase their own party by ordaining those who would joyn with them and by this means to perpetuate schisms in the Church upon this when the wiser and graver sort considered the abuses following the promiscuous use of this power of ordination and withall having in their minds the excellent frame of the Government of the Church under the Apostles and their Deputies and for preventing of future schisms and divisions among themselves they unanimously agreed to choose one out of their number who was best qualified for the management of so great a trust and to devolve the exercise of the power of ordination and jurisdiction to him yet so as that he â—ct nothing of importance without the consent and concurrence of the Presbyters who were still to be as the Common Council to the Bishop This I take to be the true and just account of the Original of Episcopacy in the Primitive Church according to Ierome Which model of Government thus contrived and framed sets forth to us a most lively character of that great Wisdom and Moderation which then ruled the heads and hearts of the Primitive Christians and which when men have searched and studyed all other wayes the abuses incident to this Government through the corruptions of men and times being retrenched will be found the most agreeable to the Primitive form both as asserting the due interest of the Presbyteries and allowing the due honour of Episcopacy and by the joynt harmony of both carrying on the affairs of the Church with the greatest Unity Concord and Peace Which form of Government I cannot see how any possible reason can be produced by either party why they may not with chearfulness embrace it Secondly another evidence that Ierome by decretum est did not mean an order of the Apostles themselves is by the words which follow the matter of the decree viz. Ut unus de Presbyteris electus superponeretur caeteris one chosen not only out of but by the Presbyters should be set above the rest for so Ierome must be understood for the Apostles could not themselves choose out of all Presbyteries one person to be set above the rest and withall the instance brought of the Church of Alexandria makes it evident to be meant of the choosing by the Presbyters and not by the Apostles Besides did Ierome mean choosing by the Apostles he would have given some intimations of the hand the Apostles had in it which we see not in him the least ground for And as for that pretence that Ecclesiae consuetudo is Apostolica traditio I have already made it appear that Apostolica traditio in Ierome is nothing else but Consuetudo Ecclesiae which I shall now confirm by a pregnant and unanswerable testimony out of Ierome himself Unaquaeque provincia abundet in sensu suo praecepta majorum leges Apostolicas arbitretur Let every Province abound in its own sense and account of the ordinances of their Ancestors as of Apostolical Laws Nothing could have been spoken more fully to open to us what Ierome means by Apostolical traditions viz the practice of the Church in former ages though not coming from the Apostles themselves Thus we have once more cleared Ierome and the truth together I only wish all that are of his judgement for the practice of the primitive Church were of his temper for the practice of their own and while they own not Episcopacy as necessary by a divine right yet being duly moderated and joyned with Presbyteries they may embrace it as not only a lawful but very useful constitution in the Church of God By which we may see what an excellent temper may be found out most fully consonant to the primitive Church for the management of ordinations and Church power viz. by the Presidency of the Bishop and the concurrence of the Presbyterie For the Top-gallant of Episcopacy can never be so well managed for the right steering the ship of the Church as when it is joyned with the under-sails of a Moderate Presbyterie So much shall suffice to speak here as to the power of ordination which we have found to be derived from the Synagogue and the customes observed in
title above Presbyter but rather used by way of diminution and qualification of the power implyed in the name of Presbyter Therefore to shew what kind of power and Duty the name Presbyter imported in the Church the Office conveyed by that name is called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and Presbyters are said 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 1 Pet. 5 2. where it is opposed to that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Lording it over the people as was the custome of the Presbyters among the Jews So that if we determine things by importance of words and things signified by them the power of Ordination was proper to the name 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 because the former name did then import that power and not the latter We come therefore from the names to the things then implyed by them and the Offices established by the Apostles for the ruling of Churches But my design being not to dispute the arguments of either party viz. those who conceive the Apostles setled the Government of the Church in an absolute parity or else by Superiority and Subordination among the setled Officers of the Church but to lay down those principles which may equally concern both in Order to accommodation I find not my self at present concerned to debate what is brought on either side for the maintaining their particular Opinion any further then thereby the Apostles intentions are brought to have been to bind all future Churches to observe that individual Form they conceived was in practice then All that â— have to say then concerning the course taken by the Apostles in setling the Government of the Churches under which will be contained the full Resolution of what I promised as to the correspondency to the Synagogue in the Government of Churches lies in these three Propositions which I now shall endeavour to clear viz. That neither can we have that certainty of Apostolical practice which is necessary to Constitute a Divine right nor Secondly Is it probable that the Apostles did tye themselves up to any one fixed course in modelling Churches nor thirdly if they did doth it necessarily follow that we must observe the same If these three considerations be fully cleared we may see to how little purpose it is to Dispute the Significancy and Importance of words and names as used in Scripture which hitherto the main quarrel hath been about I therefore begin with the first of these That we cannot arrive to such an absolute certainty what course the Apostles took in Governing Churches as to inferr from thence the only Divine Right of that one Form which the several parties imagine comes the nearest to it This I shall make out from these following arguments First from the equivalency of the names and the doubtfulness of their signification from which the Form of Government used in the New Testament should be determined That the Form of Government must be derived from the Importance of the names of Bishop and Presbyter is hotly pleaded on both sides But if there can be no certain way sound out whereby to come to a Determination of what the certain Sense of those names is in Scripture we are never like to come to any certain Knowledge of the things signified by those names Now there is a fourfold equivalency of the names Bishop and Presbyter taken notice of 1. That both should signifie the same thing viz. a Presbyter in the modern Notion i. e. one acting in a parity with others for the Government of the Church And this Sense is evidently asserted by Theodoret 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Apostle Acts 20. 28. Philip. 1. 1. Titus 1. 5. 1 Tim. 3. 1. doth by Bishops mean nothing else but Presbyters otherwise it were impossible for more Bishops to govern one City 2. That both of them should signifie promiscuously sometimes a Bishop and sometimes a Presbyter so Chrysostome and after him Occumenius and Theophylact in Phil. 1. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and in Acts 20. 28. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Where they assert the Community and promiscuous use of the names in Scripture so that a Bishop is sometimes called a Presbyter and a Presbyter sometimes called a Bishop 3. That the name Bishop alwayes imports a singular Bishop but the name Presbyter is taken promiscuously both for Bishop and Presbyter 4. That both the names Bishop and Presbyter doe import onely one thing in Scripture viz. the Office of a singular Bishop in every Churchâ— which Sense though a stranger to antiquity is above all other embraced by a late very Learned Man who hath endeavoured by set Discourses to reconcile all the places of Scripture where the names occur to this sense but with what success it is not here a place to examine By this variety of Interpretation of the Equivalency of the names of Bishop and Presbyter we may see how far the argument from the promiscuous use of the names is from the Controversie in hand unless some evident arguments be withall brought that the Equivalency of the words cannot possibly be meant in any other Sense then that which they contend for Equivocal words can never of themselves determine what Sense they are to be taken in because they are Equivocal and so admit of different Senses And he that from the use of an Equivocal word would inferr the necessity onely of one sense when the word is common to many unless some other argument be brought inforcing that necessity will be so far from perswading others to the same belief that he will only betray the weakness and shortness of his own reason When Augustus would be called only Princeps Senatus could any one inferr from thence that certainly he was onely the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the Senate or else that he had superiority of power over the Senate when that Title might be indifferent to either of those senses All that can be infer'd from the promiscuous sense of the words is that they may be understood only in this sense but it must be proved that they can be understood in no other sense before any one particular form of Government as necessâ—ry can be inferred from the use of them If notwithstanding the promiscuous use of the name Bishop and Presbyter either that Presbyter may mean a Bishop or that Bishop may mean a Presbyter or be sometimes used for one sometimes for the other what ground can there be laid in the equivalency of the words which can inferr the only Divine Right of the form of Government couched in any one of those senses So likewise it is in the Titles of Angels of the Churches If the name Angel imports no incongruity though taken only for the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the Jewish Synagogue the publick Minister of the Synagogue called the Angel of the Congregation what power can be inferred from thence any more then such an Officer was invested with Again if the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or President
of the assembly of Presbyters might be so called what superiority can be deduced thence any more then such a one enjoys Nay if in the Prophetical style an unity may be set down by way of representation of a multitude what evidence can be brought from the name that by it some one particular person must be understood And by this means Timothy may avoid being charged with leaving his first Love which he must of necessity be by those that make him the Angel of the Church of Ephesus at the time of writing these Epistles Neither is this any wayes solved by the Answer given that the name Angel is representative of the whole Church and so there is no necessity the Angel should be personally guilty of it For first it seems strange that the whole diffusive body of the Church should be charged with a crime by the name of the Angel and he that is particularly meant by that name should be free from it As if a Prince should charge the Maior of a Corporation as guilty of rebellion and by it should only mean that the Corporation was guilty but the Maior was innocent himself Secondly If mady things in the Epistles be directed to the Angel but yet so as to concern the whole body then of necessity the Angel must be taken as Representative of the Body and then why may not the word Angel be taken only by way of representation of the body its self either of the whole Church or which is far more probable of the Consessus or Order of Presbyters in that Church We see what miserably unconcluding arguments those are which are brought for any form of Government from Metaphorical or Ambiguous expressions or names promiscuously used which may be interpreted to different senses What certainty then can any rational man find what the form of Government was in the Primitive times when onely those arguments are used which may be equally accommodated to different forms And without such a certainty with what confidence can men speak of a Divine Right of any one particular form Secondly The uncertainty of the Primitive form is argued from the places most in controversie about the form of Government because that without any apparent incongruity they may be understood of either of the different forms Which I shall make out by going through the several places The Controversie then on foot is this as it is of late stated Whether the Churches in the Primitive times were governed by a Bishop only and Deacons or by a Colledge of Presbyters acting in a parity of power The places insisted on on both sides are these Acts 11. 30. Acts 14. 23. Acts 28. 17 1 Tim. 3. 1. Titus 1. 5. The thing in controversie is Whether Bishops with Deacons or Presbyters in a parity of power are understood in these places I begin then in order with Acts 11. 30. The first place wherein the name 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 occurrs as applyed to the Officers of the Christian Church Those that are for a Colledge of Presbyters understand by these Elders those of the Church of Ierusalem who did govern the affairs of that Church those that are for a solitary Episcopacy by these Elders understand not the local Elders of Ierusalem but the several Bishops of the Churches of Iudea Let us now see whether there be any evidence from the place to determine which of these two must necessarily be understood There is nothing at all mentioned in the place but only that upon the occasion of the Famine they sent relief to the Brethren of Judea and sent it to the Elders by the hands of Barnabas and Paul Which might either be to the Elders of the Church at Ierusalem to be distributed to the several Churches of Iudea or else to the several Pastors of those Churches either collectively as met together at Ierusalem to receive this contribution or distributively as they were in their several Churches The relief might be sent to all the Brethren of Iudea and yet either be conveyed to the particular Elders of Ierusalem to send it abroad or to the several Elders of the Churches within the circuit of Iudea But other places are brought by both parties for their particular sense in this As Acts 15. 6. here indeed mention is made of the Apostles and Elders together at Ierusalem but nothing expressed whereby we may know whether the fixed Elders of that Church or else the Elders of all the Churches of Iudea assembled upon this solemn occasion of the Council of the Apostles there So Acts 21. 11. when Paul went in to Iames it is said That All the Elders were present No more certainty here neither for either they might be the fixed Officers of that Church meeting with Iames upon Pauls coming or else they might be the Elders of the several Churches of Iudea met together not to take account of Pauls Ministry as some improbably conjecture but assembled together there at the Feast of Pentecost at which Paul came to Ierusalem which is more probable upon the account of what we read v. 20. of the many thousand believing Iews then at Jerusalem who were zealous of the Law who in all probability were the believing Jews of Iudea who did yet observe the annual Festivals of Ierusalem and so most likely their several Elders might go up together with them and there be with Iames at Pauls coming in to him No certainty then of the Church of Ierusalem how that was governed whether by Apostles themselves or other unfixed Elders or onely by Iames who exercised his Apostleship most there and thence afterward◠called the Bishop of Ierusalem We proceed therefore to the government of other Churches and the next place is Acts 14. 23. And when they had ordained them Elders in every Church Here some plead for a plurality of Elders as fixed in every Church but it is most evident that the words hold true if there was but one in each Church For 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 here and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Titus 1. 5. for both places will admit of the same answer doth signifie no more then oppidatim or Ecclesiatim as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 gradatim 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 viritim 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 particulatim 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 vicatim No more then is imported than that Elders were ordained City by City or Church by Church as we would render i◠and thereby nothing is expressed but that no Church wanted an Elder but not that every Church had more Elders then one But the place most controverted is Acts 20. 17. And from Miletus Paul sent to Ephesus and called the Elders of the Church Those that say these Elders were those only of the Church of Ephesus seem to be most favoured by the article 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as seeming to apply it to that particular Church of Ephesus and by the Syriack version which renders it Venire fecit Presbyteros Ecclesiae Ephesi to the same
Isidore himself the Bishop of Sevill in Spain speaking of Presbyters His sicut Episcopis dispensatio mysteriorum Dei commissa est praesunt eni◠Ecclesiis Christi in confectione corporis sanguinis consortes cum Episcopis sunt similiter in doctrina populi in Officio praedicandi sed sola propter auctoritatem summo sacerdoti Clericorum Ordinatio reservata est ne à multis Ecclesiae Disciplina vindicatae concordiam solueret scandala generaret What could be spoken more to our purpose then this is he asserts the identity of power as well as name in both Bishops and Presbyters in governing the Church in celebrating the Eucharist in the Office of preaching to the people onely for the greater Honour of the Bishop and for preventing Schisms in the Church the power of Ordination was reserved to the Bishop by those words propter Auctoritatem he cannot possibly mean the Authority of a Divine Command for that his following words contradict that it was to prevent Schisms and Scandals and after produceth the whole place of Ierome to that purpose Agreeable to this is the judgment of the second Council of Sevil in Spain upon the occasion of the irregular proceeding of some Presbyters ordained by Agapius Bishop of Corduba Their words are these Nam quamvis cum Episcopis plurima illis Ministeriorum communis sit dispensatio quaedam novellis Ecclesiasticis regulis sibi prohibita noverint sicut Presbyterororum Diaconorum Virginum consecratio c. Haec enim omnia illicita esse Presbyteris quia Pontificatus apicem non habent quem solis deberi Episcopis authoritate Canonum praecipitur ut per hoc discretio graduum dignitatis fastigium summi Pontificis demonstretur How much are we beholding to the ingenuity of a Spanish Council that doth so plainly disavow the pretence of any divine right to the Episcopacy by them so strenuously asserted All the right they plead for is from the novellae Ecclesiasticae regula which import quite another thing from Divine institution and he that hath not learnt to distinguish between the authority of the Canons of the Church and that of the Scriptures will hardly ever understand the matter under debate with us and certainly it is another thing to preserve the honour of the different Degrees of the Clergy but especially of the chief among them viz. the Bishop than to observe a thing meerly out of Obedience to the command of Christ and upon the account of Divine institution That which is rejoyned in answer to these Testimonies as far as I can learn is onely this that the Council and Isidore followed Jerome and so all make up but one single Testimony But might it not as well be said that all that are for Episcopacy did follow Ignatius or Epiphanius and so all those did make up but one single Testimony on the other side Ye◠I do as yet despair of finding any one single Testimony in all Antiquity which doth in plain terms assert Episcopacy as it was setled by the practice of the Primitive Church in the ages following the Apostles to be of an unalterable Divine right Some expressions I grant in some of them seem to extoll Episcopacy very high but then it is in Order to the Peace and Unity of the Church and in that Sense they may sometimes be admitted to call it Divine and Apostolical not in regard of its institution but of its end in that it did in their Opinion tend as much to preserve the Unity of the Church as the Apostles Power did over the Churches while they were living If any shall meet with expressions seeming to carry the Fountain of Episcopal power higher let them remember to distinguish between the power it self and the restrained Exercise of that power the former was from the Apostles but common to all Dispensers of the Word the latter was appropriated to some but by an Act of the Church whereby an eminency of power was attributed to one for the safety of the whole And withall let them consider that every Hyperbolical expression of a Father will not bear the weight of an Argument and how common it was to call things Divine which were conceived to be of excellent use or did come from persons in authority in the Church One would think that should meet with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the Acts of the Council of Chalcedon it could be rendred by nothing short of the Scriptures whereas they mean no more by it but onely the Emperours Letters to the Council It hath been already observed how ready they were to call any custome of the Church before their times an Apostolical Tradition And as the Heathens when they had any thing which they knew not whence it came they usually called it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as though it came immediately from Heaven So the Fathers when Traditions were convey'd to them without the names of the Authors they conclude they could have no other Fountain but the Apostles And thus we see many Traditions in several Churches directly contrary to one another were looked on as Apostolical onely from the prevalency of this perswasion that whatever they derived from their Fathers was of that nature But then for that answer to the Council and Isidore and Ierome that they make but one testimony I say that although the words be of the same Sense yet they have the nature of a different testimony upon these accounts First as produced by persons of different condition in the Church some think they are even with Ierome when they tell us what a pique there was between him and Iohn Bishop of Ierusalem and that he might have the better advantage of his adversary when he could not raise himself up to the Honour of Episcopacy he would bring that down to the State of Presbytery but as such entertain too unworthy thoughts of one of those Fathers whom they profess themselves admirers of so this prejudice cannot possibly lie against Isidore or the Council For the first was himself a Bishop of no mean account in the Church of God and the Council was composed of such it could be no biass then of that nature could draw them to this Opinion and no doubt they would have been as forward to maintain their own authority in the Church as the Truth and Conscience would give them leave Therefore on this account one Testimony of a single Bishop much more of a whole Council of them against their acting by Divine Authority in the Church is of more validity then ten for it in as much as it cannot but be in Reason supposed that none will speak any thing against the authority they are in or what may tend in the least to diminish it but such as make more Conscience of the Truth then of their own Credit and Esteem in the World Secondly in that it was done in different ages of the Church Ierome flourished about
any particular Form of Church-Government setled in the Apostles times which can be drawn from the help of the Records of the Primitive Church which must be first cleared of all Defectiveness Ambiguity Partiality and Confusion before the thing we inquire for can be extracted out of them Having thus far shewed that we have no absolute certainty of what Form of Government was setled by the Apostles in the several Churches of their Plantation The next Consideration which follows to be spoken to is that the Apostles in probability did not observe any one fixed course of setling the Government of Churches but setled it according to the several circumstances of places and persons which they had to deal with This will be ex abundanti as to the thing by me designed which would be sufficiently cleared without this and therefore I lay it not as the Foundation of my Thesis but onely as a Doctrine of Probability which may serve to reconcile the Controversies on foot about Church-Government For if this be made appear then it may be both granted that the Apostles did settle the Government in the Church in a Colledg of Presbyters and in a Bishop and Deacons too according to the diversity of places and the variety of circumstances It is easie to observe that as to Rites and Customes in the Church the Original of most mens mistakes is Concluding that to be the general Practice of the Church which they meet with in some places whereas that is most true which Firmiliam tells us In plurimis Provinciis multa pro locorum nominum l. hominum diversitate variantur nec tamen propter hoc ab Ecclesiae Catholicae pace atque unitate discossum est Those Rites varied in divers places retaining still the Unity of the Faith so as to matter of Government mens mistakes do arise from an universal conclusion deduced out of particular premises and what they think was done in one place they conclude must be done in all Whereas these are the grounds inducing me probably to conclude that they observed not the same course in all places Which when an impartial Reader hath soberly considered with what hath gone before I am in hopes the Novelty of this Opinion may not prejudicate its entertainment with him My grounds are these First From the different state condition and quantity of the Churches planted by the Apostles Secondly From the multitude of unfixed Officers in the Church then which acted with authority over the Church where they were resident Thirdly from the different customes observed in several Churches as to their Government after the Apostles decease I begin with the first The different State Condition and Quantity of the Churches planted by the Apostles For which we are to consider these things First That God did not give the Apostles alike success of their labours in all places Secondly That a small number of believers did not require the same number which a great Church did to teach and govern them Thirdly That the Apostles did settle Church-Officers according to the probability of increase of believers and in order thereto in some great places First That God did not give the Apostles equal success to their labours in all places After God called them to be Fishers of men it was not every draught which filled their Net with whole shoals of Fishes sometimes they might toyle all Night still and catch nothing or very little It was not every Sermon of Peters which converted three thousand the whole world might at that rate soon have become Christian although there had been but few Preachers besides the Apostles God gave them strange success at first to encourage them the better to meet with difficulties afterwards In 〈…〉 es God told them he had much people in others we read but of few that believed At Corinth Paul Plants and Apollos Waters and God gives an abundant increase but at Athens where if moral dispositions had fitted men for Grace and the improvements of Nature we might have expected the greatest number of Converts yet here we read of many mocking and others delaying and but of very few believing Dionysius and Damaris and some others with them The Plantations of the Apostles were very different not from the Nature of the soile they had to deal with but from the different influence of the Divine Spirit upon their Endeavours in severall places We cannot think that the Church at Cenchrea for so it is called was as well stockt with Believers as that at Corinth Nay the Churches generally in the Apostles times were not so filled with Numbers as men are apt to imagine them to be I can as soon hope to find in Apostolical times Diocesan Churches as Classical and Provincial yet this doth not much advantage the Principles of the Congregational men as I have already demonstrated Yet I do not think that all Churches in the Apostles times were but one Congregation but as there was in Cities many Synagogues so there might be many Churches out of those Synagogues enjoying their former liberties and priviledges And they that will shew me where five thousand Jewes and more did ordinarily meet in one of their Synagogues for publike worship may gain something upon me in order to believing the Church of Ierusalem to be but one Congregation and yet not perswade me till they have made it appear that the Christians then had as publike solemn set meetings as the Jews had which he that understands the state of the Churches at that time will hardly yield to the belief of I confess I cannot see any rule in Scripture laid down for distributing Congregations but this necessity would put them upon and therefore it were needless to prescribe them and very little if any reason can I see on the other side why where there were so much people as to make distinct Congregations they must make distinct Churches from one another but of that largely in the next chapter All Churches then we see were not of an equal extent The second premisal Reason will grant viz. that a small Church did not require the same number of Officers to rule it which a great one did For the duty of Officers lying in Reference to the People where the People was but few one constant setled Officer with Deacons under him might with as much ease discharge the work as in a numerous Church the joynt help of many Officers was necessary to carry it on The same reason which tells us that a large flock of Sheep consisting of many thousands doth call for many Shepherds to attend them doth likewise tell us that a small flock may be governed with the care of one single Shepherd watching continually over them The third premisall was that in great Cities the Apostles did not onely respect the present guidance of those that were converted but established such as might be useful for the converting and bringing in of others to the Faith who were
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as the Sense clearly carries it there was not found any worthy of being a Bishop the place remained without one But where necessity required one and there were some found fit for that Office there some were ordained Bishops but for want of convenient number there could be no Presbyters found out to be Ordained and in such places they were contented with the Bishop and Deacons for without their Ministry the Bishop could not be So that according to Epiphanius there were three several states of Churches in the Apostles times first some Churches where there were onely Presbyters and Deacons without a Bishop For if Epiphanius speaks not at first of places where Presbyters were without a Bishop he must be guilty of a vain and empty Tautology for he after tells us where the necessity of the Church required it a Bishop was made therefore before he speaks of places only where Presbyters and Deacons were and otherwise he would not answer Aerius about 1 Tim. 4. 14. which it is his design to do about The laying on of the hands of the Presbyterie He grants then that at first in some places there were only Presbyters and Deacons as when the Apostle writes to Bishops and Deacons where Bishops at that time of the Church were only Presbyters of which two orders Presbyters and Deacons there was an absolute necessity and the account he gives why they setled no higher order above them is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Apostles could not settle all things at first which words are to be read with a Parenthesis giving an account why sometimes only Bishops and Deacons were setled that is Presbyters so called But saith he where necessity called for a higher order of Bishops above Presbyters and any were found qualified for it there such were appointed and if by reason of the want of persons of sufficient abilities to be made Presbyters in those places there they were contented with such a superior Bishop and Deacons assisting of him Some Churches then according to his judgement had a company of Presbyters to rule them being assisted with Deacons others had only a single Bishop with Deacons and after when the numbers were increased and persons qualified were found there were both Bishops Presbyters and Deacons For the account which he gives of the former want of some Officers in some Churches is this 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Read 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as the learned Dr. well corrects it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 For the Church not yet having all her offices filled things were fain to remain in that state For nothing can be compleated at first but in process of time every thing receives its due perfection So that Epiphanius doth not as it is thought by some say that in the first times of the Church there were none but Bishops and Deacons in all Churches but in some Churches there were Presbyters and Deacons in others Bishops and Deacons according to the state condition and necessity of the Churches Epiphanius then fully and clearly expresseth my opinion in reference to the Apostles not observing any one constant course in all Churches but setling sometimes many Presbyters with Deacons sometimes only one Pastor who is therefore called a Bishop with Deacons and so setling Officers according to the particular occasions of every Church The next considerable testimony to our purpose is that of Clemens Alexandrinus in Eusebius concerning St. Iohn after his return out of the â—sle of Patmos to Ephesus upon the death of Domitian 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 He went abroad upon invitation into the neighbour-provinces in some places constituting Bishops in some setting in order whole Churches in others choosing out one from among the rest of those who were designed by the spirit of God whom he set over the Church So Salmasius contends it must be translated 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 choosing one into the Clergy for those who were chosen Bishops are sald 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and they that choose are said 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Whence Salmasius gathers out of these words the very thing I am now upon In majoribus urbibus plures in minoribus pauciores Presbyteros ordinari solitos probabile est In pagis autem aut vicis vel pusillis oppidis quales 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 vel 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 vocabant Graeci unum aliquem Presbyterum per illa praecipuè tempora quibus non magnus erat numerus sidelium suffecisse verisimile est That the Apostles set a greater number of Presbyters in great Cities fewer in less and in small Villages but one when the number of Believers was but small We have yet one Author more who speaks fully to our purpose It is the author of the Commentaries under Ambrose his name who frequently asserts-this opinion I am now making good Upon the fourth of Ephesians he largely discourseth how things were setled at first by the Apostles by degrees in the Church of God evidently shewing that the Apostles did not at first observe any setled constant course but acted according to present conveniency as they saw good in order to the promoting and advancing the Churches Interest Post quam omnibus locis Ecclesiae sunt constitutae officia ordinata aliter composita res est quam coeperat Thereby declaring his opinion that while Churches were constituting no certain course was observed For as he goes on Primum enim omnes docebant omnes baptizabant quibuscunque diebus vel temporibus fuisset occasio c. Ut ergo cresceret plebs multiplicaretur Omnibus inter initia concessum est Evangelizare baptizare scripturas in Ecclesia explanare At ubi omnia loca circumplexa est Ecclesia conventicula constituta sunt rectores caetera officia in Ecclesiis sunt ordinata ut nullus de Clero auderet qui ordinatus non esset prasumere ossicium quod sciret non sibi creditum vel concessum coepit alio ordine providentiâ gubernari Ecclesia quia si omnes eadem possent irrationabile esset vulgaris res vilissima videretur c. Ideò non per omnia conveniunt scripta Apostoli ordinationi quae nunc est in Ecclesia quia haec inter primordia sunt scripta Nam Timotheum Presbyterum à se creatum Episcopum vocat quia primum Presbyteri Episcopi appellabantur ut recedente uno sequens ei succederet c. At first he saith All Church-Offices lay open to all persons and every one did preach and baptize upon all occasions but afterwards when Congregations were established and Churches setled then none undertook that office but those that were ordained to it Thence it is that the Apostles Writings are not suitable to the present state of the Church because they were penned in the time when things were not fully setled For he calls Timothy who was made a Presbyter by him Bishop
apt to think now the name of Christians will carry them to Heaven It is a too common and very dangerous deceit of men to look upon Religion more as a profession then matter of Life more as a Notion then an inward temper Men must be beat off from more things which they are apt to trust to for salvation now than in those times Men could not think so much then that diligence in publike assemblies and attendance at publick prayers was the main Religion Few would profess Christianity in those times but such as were resolved before hand rather to let go their lives then their profession but the more profess it now without understanding the terms of salvation by it the greater necessity of preaching to instruct men in it But I think more need not be said of this to those that know it is another thing to be a Christian then to be called so But however it is granted that in the Apostles times preaching was the great Work and if so how can we think one single person in a great City was sufficient both to preach to and rule the Church and to preach abroad in order to the conversion of more from their Gentilisme to Christianity Especially if the Church of every City was so large as some would make it viz. to comprehend all the Believers under the civil jurisdâ—ction of the City and so both City and Countrey the only charge of one single Bishop I think the vastness of the work and the impossibility of a right discharge of it by one single person may be argument enough to make us interpret the places of Scripture which may be understood in that sense as of more then one Pastour in every City as when the Apostles are said to ordain Elders in every City and Pauls calling for the Elders from Ephesus and his writing to the Bishops and Deacons of the Church of Philippi this consideration I say granting that the Texts may be otherwise understood will be enough to incline men to think that in greater Cities there was a society of Presbyters acting together for the carrying on the work of the Gospel in converting some to and building up of others in the faith of Christ. And it seems not in the least manner probable to me that the care of those great Churches should at first be intrusted in the hands of one single Pastour and Deacon and afterwards a new order of Presbyters erected under them without any order or rule laid down in Scripture for it or any mention in Ecclesiastical Writers of any such after institution But instead of that in the most populous Churches we have many remaining footsteps of such a Colledge of Presbyters there established in Apostolical times Thence Ignatius says The Presbyters are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Sanhedrin of the Church appointed by God and the Bench of Apostles sitting together for ruling the affairs of the Church And Origen calls it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a Colledge in every City of Gods appointing and Victor Bishop of Rome Colligium nostrum and Collegium fratrum Pius Pauperem Senatum Christi apud Romam constitutum Tertullian Probatos seniores Cyprian Cleri nostri sacrum venerandumque Concessum and to Cornelius Bishop of Rome and his Clergy Florentissimo Clero tecum praesidenti Ierome Senatum nostrum coetum Presbyterorum commune Concilium Presbyterorum quo Ecclesiae gubernabantur Hilary Seniores sinâ— quorum consilio nihil agebatur in Ecclesia the author de 7 Ordinibus ad Rustiâ—um calls the Presbytâ—â—s negotiorum judices Enâ—ychius tells us there were twelve Presbyters at Alexandria to govern the Church and the author of the Iâ—inerary of Peter of as many constituted at Caesaria who though counterfeit must be allowed to speak though not verâ— yet verisimilia though not true yet likely things Is iâ— possible all these authors should thus speak of their several places of a Colledge of Presbyters acting in power with the Bishop if at first Churches were governed only by a single Bishop and afterwards by subject Presbyters that had nothing to do in the rule of the Church but were only deputed to some particular offices under him which they were impowered to do only by his authority But the joint-rule of Bishop and Presbyters in the Churches will be more largely deduced afterwards Thus we see a Company of Presbyters setled in great Churches now we are not to imagine that all these did equally attend to one part of their woâ—k but all of them according to their several abilities laid out themselves some in â—verseeing and guiding the Church but yet so as upon occasion to discharge all pastoral acts belonging to their function others betook themselves chiefly to the conversion of others to the faith either in the Cities or the adjacent countryes By which we come to a full clear and easie understanding of that so much controverted place 1 Tim. 5. 17. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Elders that rule well are counted worthy of double honour especially they that labour in the Word and Doctrine Not as though it implyed a distâ—â—ct sort of Elders from the Pastors of Churches but among those Elders that were ordained in the great Churches some attended most to ruling the flock already converted others laboured most in converting others to the Faith by preaching though both these being entred into this peculiar function of laying themselves forth for the benefit of the Church did deserve both respect and maintenance yet especially those who imployed themselves in converting others in as much as their burden was greater their labours more abundant their sufferings more and their very Office coming the nearest to the Apostolical function So Chrysostome resolves it upon the fourth of the Ephesians that those who were 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as Theodoret expresseth it the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the fixed Officers of particular Churches were inferiour to those who went abroad preaching the Gospel 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 saith he 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 An evident argument that the Apostle doth not intend any sort of Elders dictinct from these ordained Presbyters of the Cities is from that very argument which the greatest friends to Lay-Elders draw out of this Epistle which is from the promiscuous acception of the words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in this very Epistle to Timothy The argument runs thus The Presbyters spoken of by Paul in his Epistle to Timothy are Scripture-Bishops but Lay-Elders are not Scripture-Bishops therefore these cannot here be meant The major is their own from 1 Tim. 3. 1. compared with 4. 14. Those which are called Presbyters in one place are Bishops in another and the main force of the argument lies in the promiscuous use of Bishop and Presbyter now then if Lay-Elders be not such Bishops then they are not Pauls Presbyters now Pauls Bishops must be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 fit to teach and therefore no
Lay-Elders Again we may consider where Timothy now was viz at Ephesus and therefore if such Lay-Elders anywhere they should be there Let us see then whether any such were here It is earnestly pleaded by all who are for Lay-Elders that the Elders spoken of Acts 20. 17. were the particular Elders of the Church of Ephesus to whom Paul spoke v. 28. where we may find their Office at large described Take heed therefore unto your selves and all the flock over which God hath made you 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Bishops or Overseers Here we see both the names Elders and Bishops confounded again so that he that was an Elder was a Bishop too and the Office of such Elders described to be a Pastoral charge over a flock which is inconsistent with the notion of a Lay-Elder Paul sent indefinitely for the Elders of the Church to come to him If any such then at Ephesus they must come at this summons all the Elders that came were such as were Pastors of Churches therefore there could be no Lay Elders there I insist not on the argument for maintenance implyed in double Honour which Chrysostome explains by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a supply of necessaries to be given to them as appears by ver 18. which argument Blondel saw such strength in that it brought him quite off from Lay-Elders in that place of Timothy And he that will remove the Controversie from the Scriptures to the Primitive Church as we have no reason to think that if such were appointed they should be so soon laid aside will find it the greatest dâ—fficulty to trace the foot-steps of a Lay-Elder through the Records of antiquity for the three first centuries especially The Writers of the Church speak of no Presbyters but such as preached as appears by Origen Cyprian and Clement of Alexandria Origen saith Omnes Episcopi atque omnâ—s Presbyteri vel Diaconi â—rudiunt nos erudientes adhibent correptionem verbis austerioribus increpant We see all Bishops Presbyters and Deacons wâ—re in his time Preachers So Cyprian Et creâ—ideram quidem Presbyteros Diaconos qui illic praesentes sunt monere vos instruere plenissimè circa Evangelii Legem sicut semper ab antecessoribus nostris factum est and in another Epistle about making Numidicus a Presbyter he thus expresseth it ut ascribatur Presbyterorum Carthaginensium numero nobiscum sedeat in Clero where to sit as one of the Clergy and to be a Presbyter are all one Again had there been any such Elders it would have belonged to them to lay hands on those that were reconciled to the Church after Censures now hands were onely laid on ab Episcopo Clero as the same Cyprian tells us Clemens Alexandrinus describing the Office of a Presbyter hath these words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 where Teaching is looked on as his proper work And elsewhere more fully and expresly discoursing of the service of God and distinguishing it according to the twofold service of men 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 he applies these to the Churches 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The former he explains afterwards 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 A Presbyter is one that is ordained or appointed for the instruction of others in order to their amendment implying thereby the Office of a Presbyter to be wholly conversant about teaching others to whom on that account the art of making others better doth properly belong So much may suffice for those first times of the Church that there were no Presbyters then but such as had the Office of Teaching And for the times afterwards of the Church let it suffice at present to produce the Testimony of a Council held in the beginning of the seventh Century who absolutely Decree against all Lay-persons medling in Church-affairs Nova actione didicimus quosdam ex nostro Collegio contra mores Ecclesiasticos laicos habere in rebus Divinis constitutos Oeconomos Proinde pariter tractantes eligimus ut unusquisque nostrûm secundum Chalcedonensium Patrum decreta ex proprio Clero Oeconomum sibi constituat Indecorum est enim Laicum esse vicarium Episcopi saculares in Ecclesia judicare iâ— uno enim eodemque Officiâ— non debet esse dispar professio A Canon directly leveld against all Lay-Chancellours in Bishops Courts and such Officials But doth with the same force take away all Lay-Elders as implying it to be wholly against the rule of the Church to have secular persons to judge in the Church But although I suppose this may be sufficient to manifest the no Divine right of Lay-Elders yet I do not therefore absolutely condemn all use of some persons chosen by the people to be as their representatives for managing their interest in the affairs of the Church For now the voice of the people which was used in the Primitive times is grown out of use such a constitution whereby two or more of the peoples choice might be present at Church debates might be very useful so they be looked on onely as a prudential humane constitution and not as any thing founded on Divine right So much may serve for the first Ground of the probability of the Apostles not observing one setled Form of Church-Government which was from the different state quantity and condition of the Churches by them planted The second was from the multitude of unfixed Officers residing in some places who managed the Affairs of the Church in chief during their Residence Such were the Apostles and Evangelists and all persons almost of note in Scripture They were but very sew and those in probability not the ablest who were left at home to take care of the spoil the strongest and ablest like Commanders in an Army were not setled in any Troop but went up and down from this company to that to order them and draw them forth and while they were they had the chief authority among them but as Commandets of the Army and not as Officers of the Troop Such were Evangelists who were sent sometimes into this Countrey to put the Churches in order there sometimes into another but where ever they were they acted as Evangelists and not as fixed Officers And sâ—câ— were Timothy and Titus notwithstanding all the Opposition made against it as will appear to any that will take an impartial Survey of the arguments on both sides Now where there were in some places Evangelists in others not and in many Churches it may be no other Officers but these it will appear that the Apostles did not observe one constant Form but were with the Evangelists travelling abroad to the Churches and ordering things in them as they saw cause But as to this I have anticipated my self already The last ground was from the different custome observed in the Churches after the Apostles times For no other rational account can be given of the different opinions of Epiphanius Ierome and
Hilary but this that one speakâ— of the Custome of some Churches and the other of others In some as at Alexandria the Presbyters might choose their Bishop in other places it might be as Hilary saith that when the first withdrew another succeeded him Not by a monethly or Annual rotation of Presidents as some have imagined but by a Presidency for life of one upon whose death another succeeded in his room For the former Opinion hath not any Evidence at all for it in Scripture or Antiquity or in the place brought to prove it For according to this Opinion Timothy must have but his course in the rotation of Elders at Ephesus which seems very incongruous to the Office of Timothy I conclude thâ—n that in all probability the Apostles tyed not themselves up to one certain course but in some Churches setled more or fewer Officers as they saw cause and in others governed themselves during life and that at their death they did not determine any form is probably argued from the different customes of several Churches afterwards The third Consideration touching Apostolical practice is concerning the Obligatory force of it in reference to us which I lay down in these terms That a meer Apostolical practice being supposed is not sufficient of its self for the founding an unalterable and perpetual right for that Form of Government in the Church which is supposed to be founded on that practice This is a Proposition I am sure will not be yielded without proving it and therefore I shall endeavour to doe it by a fourfold argument First because many things were done by the Apostles without any intention of obliging any who succeeded them afterwards to do the same As for instance the twelve Apostles going abroad so unprovided as they did when Christ sent them forth at first which would argue no great wisedome or reason in that man that should draw that practice into consequence now Of the like nature was Pauls preaching 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to some Churches receiving no maintenance at all from some Churches as that at Corinth Which instance is a manifest evidence of the monstrous weakness of Discourse in those who would make that example of Paul Obligatory to all Ministers of the Gospel now And while they would by this argument take away their Lands and Tythes instead of them they give them Plaustra convitiorum whole loads of the most reproachful Speeches that ever were given to any but Christ and his Apostles For my part I think the Ministers of the Gospel would want one of the Badges of Honour belonging to their Office were they not thus reproachfully used It is part of the State which belongs to the true Ministers of the Gospel to be followed by such blackmouthed Lacqueyes who by their virulent Speeches are so farre their Friends as to keep them from that Curse which our Saviour pronounceth Wo be unto you when all men speak well of you But let us see how much wooll there is after all this cry too little to cloath the backs of Ministers if such persons might be their Tythe-men but it is well they are so little befriended yea so much opposed by the great Apostle in that singular practice of his For doth he say It was unlawful for him to receive a maintenance from the Churches he preached to Nay doth he not set himself to prove not onely the lawfulness of Ministers taking it but the duty of peoples giving it 1 Cor. 9. from the seventh to the fâ—â—teenth verse giving many pregnant arguments to that purpose Doth he not say that all the Apostles besides him and Barnabas did forbear working and consequenâ—ly had all their necessities supplyed by the Churches Nay doâ—h not Paul himself say that he robbed other Churches taking wages of them to do service to them What Paul turned hireling and in the plainest terms take Wages of Churches Yet so it is and his forbearing it at Corinth was apt to be interpreted as an argument that he did not love them 2 Cor. 11. 11. So far were they from looking upon Paul as a hireling in doing it Paul is strong and earnest in asserting his right he might have done it at Corinth as well as elsewhere But from some prudent considerations of his own mentioned 2 Cor. 11. 12. he forboâ—e the exercise of his right among them although at the same time he received maintenance from other places As for any Divine right of a particular way of maintenance I am of the same Opinion as to that which I am in reference to particular Forms of Church-Government and those that are of another Opinion I would not wish them so much injury as to want their maintenance till they prove it But then I say these things are clear in themselves and I think sufficient grounds for conscience as to the duty of paying on the one side and the lawfulness of receiving it on the other First that a maintenance in general be given to Gospel Ministers is of Divine right else the Labourer were not worthy of his hire nor could that be true which Paul saith that our Lord hath ordained that they which preach the Gospel should live of the Gospel Secondly A maintenance in general being due Lawful authority may determine the particular way of raising it the equity of which way may be best derived from what was the most ancient practâ—ce of the World in dedicating things to God and was approved by God himself among his own people the Jews So that the way of maintenance by Tythes is the most just and equitable way Thirdly It being in the Magistrates power to determine the way of maintenance what is so determined doth bind the Consciences of all subject to that power to an obedience to it for conscience sake In as much as all men are bound thus to obey the Magistrate in all things established by him as Laws and the very same reasons any can plead for disobedience as to this may equally serve for disobedience to any other Lawes made by the Supreme Magistrate This I suppose is the clearest Resolution of that other more vexed then intricate Controversie about the right of Tythes which I have here spoken of by occasion of the mention of the Apostles practice and because it is resolved upon the same principles with the subject I am upon Meer Apostolical practice we see doth not bind because the Apostles did many things without intention of binding others Secondly the Apostles did many things upon particular Occasions Emergencies and circumstances which things so done cannot bind by vertue of their doing them any further then a parity of reason doth conclude the same things to be done in the same circumstances Thus Pauls Coelibate is far from binding the Church it being no universal practice of the Apostles by a Law but onely a thing taken up by him upon some particular grounds not of perpetual and universal concernment So community of
goods was used at first by the Church oâ— Ierusalem as most sutable to the present state of that Church but as far as we can find did neither perpetually hold in that Church nor universally obtain among other Churches as is most clear in the Church at Corinth by their Law-suiâ—â— by the different offerings of the rich and poor at the Lords Supper and by their personal contributions So the Apostles Preaching from house to house was for want of conveniency then of more publick places as free onely for Christians although that practice binds now as far as the Reason doth viz. in its tendency the promoting the work of Salvation of mens Souls Laying on hands for conferring the gifts of the Holy Ghost can never certainly bind where the Reason of it is ceased but may still continue â—s a rite of solemn Prayer and not by vertue of that practice Observing the Apostolical Decrees of abstaining from blood and things strangled and offered to Idols did hold as long as the ground of making them did which was condescension to the Jews although it must be withall acknowledged that the Primitive Christians of the second and third Centuries did generally observe them and the Greek Church to this day and some men of note and learning have pleaded for the necessary observation of them still as Christ. Beckman Steph. Curcellaeus in a Diatriba lately published to this purpose to which Grotius is likewise very inclinable The arguments are too large here to examine although I see not how possibly that place of Paul can be avoided Whatever is set in the shambles eat making no scruple for conscience sakâ— I conclude this with what I laid down at the entrance of this Treatise that where any Act or Law is founded upon a particular reason or occasion as the ground of it it doth no further oblige then the reason or occasion of it doth continue Therefore before an acknowledged Apostolical practice be looked on as Obligatory it must be made appear that what they did was not according as they saw reason and cause for the doing it depending upon the several circumstances of Time Place and Persons but that they did it from some unalterable Law of Chrâ—ist or from some such indispensable reasons as will equally hold in all Times Places and Persons And so the Obligation is taken off from Apostolical practice and laid upon that Law and Reason which was the ground of it Thirdly Offices that were of Apostolical appointment are grown wholly out of use in the Church without mens looking upon themselvs as bound now to observe them As the Widdows of the Churches afterwards from their Office called Deaconnesses of the Church of which number Phoebe was one whom Paul calls the Deaconness of the Church at Cenchrea so both Origen and Chrysostome understand it Of them and their continuance in the Church for some Centuries of years much is spoken by several Writers and resolved by several Councils and yet we see these are laid aside by the pâ—etenders to hold close to Apostolical practice if that binds certainly it doth in its plain institutions if it doth not bind in them how can it in that which is only gathered but by uncertain conjectures to have been ever their practice So that in the issue those who plead so much for the obligatory nature of Apostolical practice do not think it obligatory for if they did how comes this office of Widdows and Deaconesses to be neglected If it be answered that these are not usefull now then we must say that we look upon Apostolical practice to be binding no further then we judge it useful or the reason of it holds which is as much as to say of its self it binds not Fourthly Rites and customs Apostolical are altered therefore men do not think that Apostolical practice doth bind For if it did there could be no alteration of things agreeable thereunto Now let any one consider but these few particulars and judge how far the pleaders for a divine Right of Apostolical practice do look upon themselves as bound now to observe them as Dipping in baptism the use of Love Feasts community of goods the Holy kiss by Tertullian called Signaâ—ulum orationis yet none look upon themselves as bound to observe them now and yet all acknowledge them to have been the practice of the Apostles and therefore certainly though when it may serve for their purpose men will make Apostolical practice to found a divine Right yet when they are gone off from the matter in hand they change their opinion with the matter and can then think themselves free as to the observation of things by themselves acknowledged to be Apostolical Thus we are at last come to the end of this chapter which we have been the longer upon because the main hinge of this controversie did lyâ— in the practice of the Apostles which I suppose now so far cleared as not to hinder our progress towards what remains which we hope will admit of a quicker dispatch We come therefore from the Apostles to the Primitive Church to see whether by the practice of that we can find any thing whereby they looked on themselves as obliged by an unalterable Law to observe any one particular form of Church-Government CHAP. VII The Churches Polity in the ages after the Apostles considered Evidences thence that no certain unalterable Form of Church-Government was delivered to them 1. Because Church-Power did in large as the Churches did Whether any Metropolitan Churches established by the Apostles Seven Churches of Asia whether Metropolitical Philippi no Metropolis either in Civil or Ecclâ—siastical sense Several degrees of inlargemext of Churches Churches first the Christians in whole Cities proved by several arguments the Eulogiae an evidence of it Churches extended into the neighbour Territories by the preaching there of City Presbyters thence comes the subordination between then Churches by degrees inlarged to Diocesses from thence to Provinces The Original of Metropolitans and Patriarchs 2. No certain Form used in all Churches Some Churches without Bishops Scots Goths Some with but one Bishop in their whole Countrey Scythian Aethiopian Churches how governed Many Cities without Bishops Diocesses much altered Bishops discontinued in several Churches for many years 3. Conforâ—eing Ecclesiastical Government to the civil in the extent of Diocesses The suburbicarian Churches what Bishops answerable to the civil Governours Churches power rises from the greatness of Cities 4. Validity of Ordination by Presbyters in places where Bishops were The case of Ischyras discussed instances given of Ordination by Presbyters not pronounced null 5. The Churches prudence in managing its affairs by the several Canons Provincial Synods Codex Canonum HAving largely considered the actions of Christ and the practice of the Apostles so far as they are conceived to have reference to the determining the certain form of Government in the Church our next stage is according to our
that either there must be several Pastors taking the pastoral charge of one Congregation which is not very suitable with the principles of those I now dispute against or else many congregations in one City are all called but one Church and one flock which is the thing I plead for And therefore it is an observation of good use to the purpose in hand that the New Testâ—ment speaking of the Churches in a Province alwayes speakes of them in the plural number as the Churches of Iudaea Gal. 1. 22 1 Thes. 2 14. The Churches of Samaâ—iâ— and Galilee Acts 9. 31. The Churches of Syria and Câ—icia Acts 15. 41. The Churches of Galatia 1 Cor. 16. 1. Gal 1. 1 2. The Churches of Asia Rom. 16. 16. Rev. 1. 11. But when it speaks of any particular City then it is alwayes used in the Singular number as the Church at Jerusalem Acts 8. 1. 15 4 22. The Church at Antioch Acts 11. 26 13. 1. The Church at Corinth 1 Cor. 1. 2. 2 Cor. 1. 1â— and so of all the seven Churches of Asia the Church of Ephesus Smyrna c. So that we cannot find in Scripture the least footstep of any difference between a Church and the Christians of such a City whereas had the notion of a Church been restrained to a particular congregation doubtlesse we should have found some difference as to the Scriptures speaking of the several places For it is scarce imaginable that in all those Cities spoken of as for example Ephesus where Paul was for above two years together that there should be no more converts then would make one Congregation Accordingly in the times immediately after the Apostles the same language and custom continued still So Clement inscribes his Epistle 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Church of God which is at Rome to the Church of God which is at Corinth So by that it is plain that all the Believers at that time in Rome made up but one Church as likewise did they at Corinth Sâ— Polycarp in the Epistle written by him from the Church at Smyrna to the Church at Phylomilium 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and so in his Epistle to the Philippians 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Polycarp and the Elders with him to the Church which is at Philippi Origen compares the Church of God at Athens Corinth Alexandria and oâ—her places with the people of those several Cities and so the Churches Senate with the peoples and the Churches 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is his word chief Ruler with the Maior of those Cities implying thereby that as there was one civil Society in such places to make a City so there was a Society of Christians incorporated together to make a Church So that a Church setled with a full power belonging to it and exerc sing all acts of Church-discipline within its self was antiently the same with the Society of Christians in a City Not but that the name Church is attributed sometimes to Families in which sense Tertullian speaks Ubi duo aut tres sunt ibi Ecclesia est licet Laici And may on the same account be attributed to a small place such as many imagine the Church of Cenchrea to be it being a port to Corinth on the Sinus Sarònicus but Stephanus Byzantinus calls it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Suidas saith no more of it then that it is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Strabo and Pausanias only speak of the scituation of it as one of the poâ—ts of Corinth lying in the way from Tegaea to Argos nor is any more said of it by Pliny then that it answers to Lechaeum the port on the other side upon the Sinus Corinthiacus Ubbo Emmius in his description of old Greece calls both of them oppidula duo cum duobus praeclaris portubus in ora utriusq maris but withall adds that they were duo urbis emporia the two Marts of Corinth therefore in probability because of the great Merchandise of that City they were much frequented Cenchrea was about twelve furlongs distance from Corinth Where Pareus conjectures the place of the meeting of the Church of Corinth was because of the troubles they met with in the City and therefore they retired thither for greater conveniency and privacy which conjecture will appear not to be altogether improbable when we consider the furious opposition made by the Iews against the Christians at Corinth Acts 18. 12. and withall how usual it was both for Jews and Christians to have their place of meeting at a distance from the City As Acts 16. 13. They went out from Philippi to the River side where there was a Proseucha or a place of prayer where the Iews of Philippi accustomed to meet According to this interpretation the Church at Cenchrea is nothing else but the Church of Corinth there assembling as the Reformed Church at Paris hath their meeting place at Charenton which might be called the Church of Charenton from their publick Assemblies there but the Church of Paris from the Residence of the chief Officers and people in that City So the Church of Corinth might be called the Church at Cenchrea upon the same account there being no evidence at all of any setled Government there at Cenchrea distinct from that at Corinth So that this place which is the only one brought against that position I have laid down hath no force at all against it I conclude then that Churches and Cities were originally of equal extent and that the formal constitution of a Church lyes not in their capacity of assembling in one place but acting as a society of Christians imbodyed together in one City having Officers and Rulers among themselves equally respecting the whole number of Believers Which leads to the second thing the way and manner then used for the modelling the government of these Churches Which may be considered in a double period of time either before several Congregations in Churches were setled or after those we now call Parishes were divided First before distinct Congregations were setled and this as far as I can find was not only during the Apostles times but for a competent time after generally during the persecution of Churches For we must distinguish between such a number of Believers as could not conveniently assemble in one place and the distributing of Believers into their several distinct congregations I cannot see any reason but to think that in the great Churches of Ierusalem Antioch Ephesus and the like there were more Believers then could well meet together considering the state of those times but that they were then distributed into their several 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Centuries as the Athenians and Romans divided their people i. e. into several worshipping congregations with peculiar Officers I see no reason at all for it They had no such conveniences then of setling several congregations under their particular Pastors but all the Christians in a City looked upon
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
manner of Government in the Church was now The Bishop sitting as the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the Sanhedrin and the Presbyters 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as Ignatius expresseth it acting as the Common-Council of the Church to the Bishop the Bishop being as the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 answering to the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and the Presbytery as the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 answering to the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as Origen compares them Whereby he fully describes the form of Government in his time in the Church which was by an Ecclesiastical Senate and a President in it ruling the Society of Christians in every City So that the Presbytery of a great City joyning together for Government were never accounted a Provincial Assembly but onely the Senate for Government of the Church in the whole City The erecting Presbyteries for every particular congregation in a City is a stranger to the ancient constitution of Churches and hath given the greatest rise to the Independency of particular congregations For if every particular congregation be furnished with a Government within its self then men are apt presently to think that there is no necessity of subordination of it to any higher Church-power Whereas if that pâ—imitive constitution of Churches be held that they are Societies of Christians under an Ecclesiastical Senate in a City then it is evident that the congregations must truckâ—e under the great body as receiving their government by and their Officers from that Senate of the Church which superintends and orders the affairs of that whole Body of Christians residing in such a place And this crumbling of Church-power into every congregation is a thing absolutely disowned by the greatest and most learned Patrons of Presbytery beyond the Seas as may be seen both in Calvin Bâ—za Salmasius Blondel Gersome Bucer and others It is much disputed when the first division of Parochiall Congregations in Cities began Platina attributes it to Evaristus and so doth Damasus Hic Titulos in Urbe Roma divisit Presbyteris He divided the several Parish Churches to the Presbyters these were called then Tituli Baronius gives a double reason of the name either from goods belonging to the Princes Excâ—equer which have some sign imprinted upon them that it may be known whose they are So saith he the sign of the Cross was put upon the Churches to make it known that they were devoted to Gods Service or else they are called Tituli because the severall Presbyters did receive their Titles from them but by the Leave of the great Cardinal another Reason may be given of the name more proper then either of these It hath been observed by Learned men that the generall meetings of the Christians were in the Coemeteria or Dormitories of Christians So they called the Sepulchres then which were great and capacious Vaults fit to receive many people in them two chief grounds of the Christians meeting in those places the first was their own security because the Heathens looked on it as a matter of Religion manes temerare sepultos to disturb the ashes of the dead but the chief Reason was to encourage themselves to suffeâ— Martyrdom by the examples of those who had gone before them and lay buried there thence they were called Martyrum memoriae because they did call to mind their actions and constancy in the Faith Now from these Coemeteria was afterwards the original of Churches whence persons most reverenced for Piety were wont still to be buried in Churches not for any Holiness of the place but because in such places the Martyrs lay buried the Churches being raised over the Vaults wherein the Martyra lay intombed Now Churches being raised from these Coemeteries which were called memoriae Martyrum that they might still retain somwhat intimating their former use were called Tituli For Titulus as Santius observes is signum aliquod aut monumentum quod docet ibi latere aliquid aut accidisse cujus nolumus perire memoriam thence Statues are called Tituli So Gen. 35. 20. Erexit Iacob Titulum super Sepulchrum as the Vulgar Latine renders it and Gen. 28. 18. Surgens ergo Iacob mane tulit lapidem quem suâ—posuerat capiti suo erexit in titulum So Absalom 2 Sam. 18. 18. erexit sibi Titulum So that what was erected to maintain and preserve the memory of any thing was called Titulus and thence the Churches being built upon the Coemiteries of the Martyrs were on that account called Tituli because intended for the preservation of their memories This account of the Original of the name I leave to the judgement of Learned men but to proceed I confess it seems not probable to me that these Tituli were so soon divided as the time of Evaristus who lived in the time of Trajan when the persecution was hot against the Christians but Damasus seems not to believe himself for in the life of Dionysius â—e saith Hic Presbyteris ecclesias divisit coemeteria paroecias dioeceses instituit but most probably it began assoon as the Churches enjoyed any ease and peace it being so necessary for the convenient meeting of such a multitude of Christians as there was then In the life of Marcellus about fourty years after Dionysius we read of twenty five Titles in the Church of Rome of which number what use is made for interpreting the number 666. may be seen in Mr. Potters ingenuous Tract on that Subject But when afterwards these Titles were much increased those Presbyters that were placed in the ancient Titles which were the chief among them were called Cardinales Presbyteri which were then looked on as chief of the Clergy and therefore were the chief members of the Council of Presbyters to the Bishop So that at this day the Conclave at Rome and the Pope's Consistory is an evident Argument in this great degeneracy of it of the Primitive constitution of the Government of the Church there by a Bishop acting with his Colledge of Presbyters Neither was this proper to Rome alone but to all other great Cities which when the number of Presbyters was grown so great that they could not conveniently meet and joyn with the Bishop for ordering the Government of the Church there were some as the chief of them chosen out from the rest to be as the Bishops Council and these in many places as at Milan Ravenna Naples c. were called Cardinales Presbyteri as well as at Rome which were abrogated by Pius Quintus 1568 but the memory of them is preserved still in Cathedral Churches in the Chapter there where the Dean was nothing else but the Archipresbytâ—r and both Dean and Prebendaries were to be assistant to the Bishop in the regulating the Church-affairs belonging to the Citie while the Churches were contained therein So much shall suffice for the model of Government in the Churches while they were contained within the same precincts with the City its self We come in the
with them as may be seen in the actions of Paschasinus the Roman Legat in the Council of Chalcedon From whence forward the great Leviâ—than by his tumbling in the waves endeavoured to get the Dominion of all into his hands but God hath at last put a hook into his nostrils and raised up the great instruments of Reformation who like the Sword fish have so pierced into his bowels that by his tumbling he may only hasten his approaching ruine and give the Church every day more hopes of seeing its self freed from the tyranny of an Uâ—urped power By this Scheme and draught now of the increase of the Churches power nothing can be more evident then that it rise not from any divine institution but only from positive Ecclesiastical Laws made according to the several states and conditions wherein the Church was which as it gradually grew up so waâ— the power of the Church by mutual consent fitted to the state of the Church in its several ages Which was the fiâ—st argument that the Primitive Church did not conceive its self bound to observe any one unalterable form of Government This being the chief the rest that follow will sooner be dispatched The second is from the great varieties as to Government which were in several Churches What comes from divine right is observed unalterably in one uniform constant tenour but what we find so much diversified according to several places we may have ground to look on only as an Ecclesiastical constitution which was followed by every Church as it judged convenient Now as to Church Government we may find some Churches without Bishops for a long time some but with one Bishop in a whole Nation many Cities without any where Bishops were common many Churches discontinue Bishops for a great while where they had been no certain rule observed for modelling their Dâ—ocesses where they were still continued Will not all these things make it seem very improbable that it should be an Apostolical institution that no Church should be without a Bishop First then some whole Nations seem to have been without any Bishops at all if we may believe their own Historians So if we may believe the great Antiquaries of the Church of Scotland that Church was governed by their Culdei as they called their Presbyters without any Bishop over them for a long time Iohannes Maior speaks of their instruction in the faith per Sacerdotes Monachos sine Episcopis Scoti in fide eruditi but least that should be interpreted only of theâ—r conversion Iohannes Fordònus is clear and full to their government from the time of their conversion about A. D 263. to the coming of Palladius A. D. 430. that they were only governed by Presbyters and Monks Ante Palladii adventum habebant Scoti fidei Dâ—ctores ac Sacramentorum Ministratores Presbyteros solunmodo vel Monachos ritum sequentes Ecclesiae Primitivae So much mistaken was that learned man who saith That neither Beda nor any other affirms that the Scots were formerly ruled by a Presbyterie or so much as that they had any Presbyter among them Neither is it any wayes sufficient to say that these Presbyters did derive their authority from some Bishops for however we see here a Church governed without such or if they had any they were only chosen from their Culdei much after the custom of the Church of Alexandria as Hector Boethiuâ— doth imply And if we believe Philostorgius the Gothick Churches were planted and governed by Presbyters for above seventy years for so long it was from their first conversion to the time of Ulphilas whom he makes their first Bishop And great probability there is that where Churches were planted by Presbyters as the Church of France by Andochius and Benignus that afterwards upon the encrease of Churches and Presbyters to rule them they did from among themselves choose one to be as the Bishop over them as Pothinus was at Lyons For we nowhere read in those early plantations of Churches that where there were Presbyters already they sent to other Churches to derive Episcopâ—l ordination from them Now for whole Nations having but one Bishop we have the testimony of Sozomen that in Scythia which by the Romans was called Masia inferior 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Although there were many Cities they had but one Bishop The like Godignus relates of the Abâ—ssine Churches Though their Territories be of vast extent there is but only one Bishop in all those Dominions who is the Bishop of Abuna And where Bishops were most common it is evident they looked not on it as an Apostolical rule for every City to have a Bishop which it must have if it was an Apostolical institution for the Church to follow the civil Government Theodoret mentions 800 Churches under his charge in whose Diâ—cess Ptolomy placeth many other Cities of note besides Cirus as Ariseria Regia Ruba Heraclea c. In the Province of Tripoly he reckons nine Cities which had but five Bishops as appears by the Notitia Ecclesiae Africanae In Thracia every Bishop had several Cities under hâ—m The Bishop of Heraclea that and Panion the Bishop of Byze had it and Arcadiapolis of Coela had it and Callipolis Sabsadia had it and Aphrodisias It is needless to produce more instances of this nature either ancient or modern they being so common and obvious But further we find Bishops discontinued for a long time in the greatest Churches For if there be no Church without a Bishop where was the Church of Rome when from the Martyrdome of Fabian and the banishment of Lucius the Church was governed only by the Clergy So the Church of Carthage when Cyprian was banished the Church of the East when Meletius of Antioeh Eusebius Samosatenus Pelagius of Laodicea and the rest of the Orthodox Bishops were banished for ten years space and Flavianus and Diodorus two Presbyters ruled the Church of Antioch the mean while The Church of Carthage was twenty four years without a Bishop in the time of Hunerik King of the Vandals and when it was offered them that they might have a Bishop upon admitting the Arrians to a free exercise of their Religion among them their answer was upon those terms Ecclesia Episcopum non delictatur habere and Balsamon speaking of the Christian Churches in the East determines it neither safe nor necessary in their present state to have Bishops set up over them And lastly for their Diocesses it is evident there was no certain Rule for modelling them In some places they were far less then in others Generally in the primitive and Eastern Churches they were very small and little as far more convenient for the end of them in the government of the Churches under the Bishops charge it being observed out of Walafridus Strabo by a learned man Fertur in Orientis partibus per singulas urbes praefecturas singulas
esse Episcoporum gubernationes In Africk if we look but into the writings of Augustine we may find hundreds of Bishops resorting to one Council In Ireland alone Saint Patrick is said by Ninius at the first Plantation of Christianity to have founded 365. Bishopricks So Sozomen teâ—ls us that among the Arabians and Cyprians Novatians Montanists 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the very Villages had Bishops among them The next evidence that the Church did not look upon it self as by a Divine Law to observe any one model of Government is the conforming the Ecclesiasticall Government to the Civil For if the Obligation arose from a Law of GOD that must not be altered according to civil coâ—stitutions which are variable according to the different state and conditions of things If then the Apostles did settle things by a standing Law in their own times how comes the model of Church-Government to alter with the civil Form Now that the Church did generally follow the civil Government is freely acknowledged and insisted on by Learned Persons of all sides especially after the division of the Roman Empire by Constantine the Great The full making out of which is a work too large to be here undertaken and hath been done to very good purpose already by Berterius Salmasius Gothofred Blondel and others in their Learned discourses of the suburbicarian Provinces Which whether by them we understand that which did correspond to the Praefecture of the Provost of Rome which was within a hundred miles compass of the City of Rome or that which answered to the Vicarius Urbis whose jurisdiction was over the ten Provinces distinct from Italy properly so called whose Metropolis was Milan or which is most probable the Metropolitan Province answering to the jurisdiction of the Praefectus Urbis and the Patriarchate of the Roman Bishop to the Vicarius Urbis which way soever we take it we see it answered to the Civil Government I shall not here enter that debate but onely briefly at present set down the Scheme of both Civil and Ecclesiastical Government as it is represented by our Learned Breerwood The whole Empire of Rome was divided into XIII Dioceses whereof â—even belonged to the East Empire and six beside the Praefecture of the City of Rome to the West Those thirteen Dioceses together with that Praefecture contained among them 120. Provinces or thereabout so that to every Diocess belonged the administration of sundry Provinces Lastly every Province contained many Cities within their Territories The Cities had for their Rulers those inferiour Judges which in the Law are called Defensores Civitatum and their seats were the Cities themselves to which all the Towns and Villages in their several Territories were to resort for Justice The Provinces had for theirs either Proconsuls or Consulares or Praesides or Correctores four sundry appellations but almost all of equal authority and their Seats were the chiefest Cities or Metropoles of the Provinces of which in every Province there was one to which all inferiour Cities for Judgement in matters of importance did resort Lastly the Dioceses had for theirs the Lieutenants called Vicarii and their Seats were the Metropoles or Principal Cities of the Diocess whence the Edicts of the Emperour or other Lawes were publâ—shed and sent abroad into all the Provinces of the Diocess and where the Praetorium and chief Tribunal for Judgement was placed to deâ—ermiue Appeals and minister Justice as might be occasion to all the Provinces belonging to that Jurisdiction And this was the Disposition of the Roman Governour And truly it is wonderful saith that Learâ—ed Authour how nearly and exactly the Church in her Government did imitate this Civil Ordination of the Roman Magistrates For first in every City as there was a Defensor Civitatis for secular Government so was there placed a Bishop for Spiritual Regiment in every City of the East and in every City of the West almost a several Bishop whose Jurisdiction extended but to the City and the places within the Territory For which cause the Jurisdiction of a Bishop was anciently called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifying not as many ignorant Novelists think a Parish as now the word is taken that is the places or habitations near a Church but the Towns and Villages near a City all which together with the City the Bishop had in charge Secondly in every Province as there was a President so there was an Arch-Bishop and because his Seat was the principal City of the Province he was commonly known by the name of Metropolitan Lastly in every Diocess as there was a Lievtenant-General so was there a Primate seated also in the principal City of the Diocess as the Lieutenant was to whom the last determining of Appeals from all the Provinces in differences of the Clergy and the soveraign care of all the Diocess for sundry points of Spiritual Government did belong By this you may see that there were XI Primates besides the three Patriarchs for of the XIII Dioceses besides the Praefecture of the City of Rome which was administred by the Patriarch of Rome that of Egypt was governed by the Patriarch of Alexandria and that of the Orient by the Patriarch of Antiochia and all the rest by the Primates between whom and the Patriarchs was no difference of Jurisdiction and power but onely of some Honour which accrued to them by the Dignity of their Sees as is clearly expressed in the third Canon of the Council of Constantinople 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 whereby Constantinople is advanded to the honorary Title of a Patriarch next to Rome because it was New Rome Whereby it is evident that the Honour belonging to the Bishop of old Rome did arise from its being the Imperial City The Honour of the Bishop rising as Austin saith that of the Deacons of Rome did propter magnificentiam urbis Romanae quae caput esse videour omnium civitatum Hereby we now fully see what the Original was of the power of Arch-Bishops Metropolitans and Patriarchs in the Church viz. the contemperating the Ecclesiastical-Government to the civil The next Evidence that the Church did not look upon its self as bound by a Divine Law to a certain Form of Government but did order things itself in order to Peace and Unity is that after Episcopal Government was setled in the Church yet Ordination by Presbyters was looked on as valid For which these instances may suffice About the year 390. Iohannes Cassianus reports that one Abbot Daniel inâ—eriour to none of those who lived in the Desart of Scetis was made a Deacon à B. Paâ—hnutio solitudinis ejusdem Presbytero In tantum enim virtutibus ipsius adgaudebat ut quem vitae meritis sibi gratiâ parem noverat coaequare sibi etiam Sacerdotti Honore festinaret Siquidem nequaquam ferens in inferiore eum ministerio diutius immorari optansque sibiâ—et successâ—rem dignissimum providere superstes eum
onely to poor and private Men. Nature and Religion agree in this that neither of them had a hand in this Heraldry of secundum sub supra all this comes from composition and agreement of men among themselves wherefore this abuse of Christianity to make it Lacquey to Ambition is a vice for which I have no extraordinary name of Ignominy and an ordinary I will not give it lest you should take so transcendent a vice to be but trivial Thus that grave and wise person whose words savour of a more then ordinary tincture of a true Spirit of Christianity that scorns to make Religion a footstool to pride and ambition We see plainly he makes all difference between church-Church-Officers to arise from consent of parties and not from any Divine Law To the same purpose Master Chillingworth propounds this Question among many others to his adversary Whether any one kind of these external Forms and Orders and Government be so necessary to the being of a Church but that they may be diverse in divers places and that a good and peaceable Christian may and ought to submit himself to the Government of the place where he lives whosoever he be Which Question according to the tenour of the rest to which it is joyned must as to the former part be resolved in the Negative and as to the latter in the Affirmative Which is the very thing I have been so long in proving of viz. that no one Form of Church-Government is so necessary to the being of a Church but that a good and peaceable Christian may and ought to conform himself to the Government of that place where he lives So much I suppose may suffice to shew that the Opinion which I have asserted is no stranger in our own Nation no not among those who have been professed Defenders of the Ecclesiastical Government of this Church Having thus far acquainted our selves with the state and customes of our own Countrey we may be allowed the liberty of visiting Forraign Churches to see how far they concur with us in the matter in question The first person whose judgement we shall produce asserting the mutability of the Form of Church-Government is that great light of the German Church Chemnitius whom Brightman had so high an opinion of as to make him to be one of the Angels in the Churches of the Revelation He discoursing about the Sacrament of Order as the Papists call it layes down these following Hypotheses as certain truth◠1. Non esse Dei verbo mandatum qui vel quot tales gradus seu ordines esse debeant 2. Non fuisse tempore Apostolorum in omnibus Ecclesiis semper cosdem totidem gradus seu ordines id quod ex Epistolis Pauli ad diversas Ecclesias scriptis manifestè colligitur 3. Non fuit tempore Apostolorum talis distributio graduum illorum quin saepius unus idem omnia illa officia quae ad ministerium pertinent sustineret Liberae igitur fuerunt Apostolorum tempore tales ordinationes habitâ ratione ordinis decori aedificationis c. Illud Apostolorum exemplum Primitiva Ecclesia eadem ratione simili libertate imitata est Gradus enim officior um ministerii distributi fuerunt non autem eadem plane ratione sicut in Corinthiaca vel Ephesina Ecclesia sed pro ratione circumstantiarum cujusque Ecclesiae unde colligitur quae fuerit in distributione illorum graduum libertas The main thing he asserts is the Curches freedom and liberty as to the orders and degrees of those who superintend the affairs of the Church which he builds on a threefold foundation 1. That the Word of God no where commands what or how many degrees and Orders of Ministers there shall be 2. That in the Apostles times there was not the like number in all Churches as is evivident from Pauls Epistles 3. That in the Apostles times in some places one person did manage the several Offices belonging to a Church Which three Propositions of this Learned Divine are the very basis and foundation of all our foregoing Discourse wherein we have endeavoured to prove these several things at large The same Learned person hath a set Discourse to shew how by degrees the Offices in the Church did rise not from any set or standing Law but for the convenient managery of the Churches Affairs and concludes his Discourse thus Et haec prima graduum seu ordinum origo in Ecclesia Apostolica ostendit quae causa quae ratio quis usus finis esse debeat hujusmodi seu graduum seu ordinum ut scilicet pro ratione coetus Ecclesiastici singula Officia quae ad ministerium pertinent commodius rectius diligentius ordine cum aliqua gravitate ad aedificationem obeantur The summ is It appears by the practice of the Apostolical Church that the state condition and necessity of every particular Church ought to be the Standard and measure what Offices and Degrees of persons ought to be in it As to the uncertain number of Officers in the Churches in Apostolical times we have a full and express Testimony of the Famous Centuriatours of Magdeburge Quot verò in qualibet Ecclesia personae Ministerio functae sint non est in Flistoriis annotatum nec usquam est praeceptum ut aeque multi in singulis essent sed prout paucitas aut multitudo coetus postulavit ita pauciores aut plures administerium Ecclesiae sunt adhibiti We see by them there is no other certain rule laid down in Scripture what number of persons shall act in the governing every Church onely general prudence according to the Churches necessity was the ground of determining the number then and must be so still The next person whose judgement is fully on our side is a person both of Learning and Moderation and an earnest restorer of Discipline as well as Doctrine in the Church I mean Hieron Zanchy who in several places hath expressed his judgement to the purpose we are now upon The fullest place is in his Confession of Faith penned by him in the LXX year of his Age and if ever a man speaks his mind it must be certainly when he professeth his judgement in a solemn manner by way of his last Will and Testament to the world that when the Soul is going into another world he may leave his mind behind him Thus doth Zanch in that Confession in which he declares this to be his judgement as to the form of Church-Government That in the Apostles times there were but two orders under them viz. of Pastors and Teachers but presently subjoyns these words Interea tamen non improbamus Patres quod juxta variam tum verbi dispensandi tum regendae Ecclesiae rationem varios quoqu◠ordines ministrorum multiplicarint quando id iis liberum fuit sicut nobis quando constat id ab illis factum honestis de causis
of necessity is valid which I have already shewed doth evidently prove that Episcopal Government is not founded upon any unalterable Divine Right For which purpose many evidences are produced from Dr. Field of the Church lib. 3. c. 39 B. Downam l. 3. c. 4. B. Iewâ—l P. 2. p. 131. Saravia cap. 2. p. 10. 11. B. Alley Praelect 3. 6. B. Pilkinton B. Bridges B. Bilson D. Nowel B. Davenant B. Prideaux B. Andrews and others by our Reverend and learned M. Baxter in his Christian Concord to whom may be added the late most Reverend and eminent the Bishop of Durham Apolog. Cathol p. 1. l. 1. c. 21. and the Primat of Armagh whose judgement is well known as to the point of Ordination So much may suffice to shew that both those who hold an equality among Ministers to be the Apostolical Form and those that do hold Episcopacy to have been it do yet both of them agâ—ee at last in this that no one Form is setled by an unalterable Law of Christ nor consequently founded upon Divine Right For the former notwithstanding their opinion of the primitive Form do hold Episcopacy lawfull and the latter who hold Episcopacy to have been the primitive Form do not hold it perpetually and immutably necessary but that Presbyters where Bishops cannot be had may lawfully discharge the offices belonging to Bishops both which Concessions do necessarily destroy the perpetual Divine Right of that Form of Government they assert Which is the thing I have been so long in proving and I hope made it evident to any unprejudicated mind Having laid down this now as a sure foundation for peace and union it were a very easie matter to improve it in order to an Accommodation of our present differences about Church Government I shall only lay down three general Principles deducible from hence and leave the whole to the mature consideration of the Lovers of Truth and Peace The first Principle is That Prudence must be used in setling the Government of the Church This hath been the whole design of this Treatise to prove that the Form of Church-government is a meer matter of prudence regulated by the Word of God But I need not insist on the Arguments already brought to prove it for as far as I can find although the several parties in their contentions with one another plead for Divine Right yet when any one of them comes to settle their own particular Form they are fain to call in the help of Prudence even in things supposed by the several parties as necessary to the establishment of their own Form The Congregational men may despair of ever finding Elective Synods an explicite Church-Covenant or positive signs of Grace in admission of Church-members in any Law of Christ nay they will not generally plead for any more for them then general rules of Scripture fine Similitudes and Analogies and evidence of natural Reason and what are all these at last to an express Law of Christ without which it was pretended nothing was to be done in the Church of God The Presbyterians seem more generally to own the use of General Rules and the Light of Nature in order to the Form of Church Government as in the subordination of Courts Classical Assemblies and the more moderate sort as to Lay elders The Episcopal men will hardly find any evidence in Scripture or the practice of the Apostles for Churches consisting of many fixed Congregations for worship under the charge of one Person nor in the Primitive Church for the ordination of a Bishop without the preceding election of the Clergy and at least consent and approbation of the people and neither in Scripture nor antiquity the least footstep of a delegation of Church-power So that upon the matter at last all of them make use of those things in Church Government which have no other foundation but the Principles of Humane prudence guided by the Scriptures and it were well if that were observed still The second Principle is That Form of Government is the best according to principles of Christian Prudence which comes the nearest to Apostolical practice and tends most to the advancing the peace and unity of the Church of God What that Form is I presume not to define and determine but leave it to be gather'd from the evidence of Scripture and Antiquity as to the Primitive practice and from the nature state and condition of that Church wherein it is to be setled as to its tendency to the advancement of peace and unity in it In order to the finding out of which that proposal of his late most excellent Majesty of glorious memory is most highly just and reasonable His Majesty thinketh it well worthy the studies and endeavours of Divines of both opinions laying aside emulation and private interests to reduce Episcopacy and Presbyteriâ— into such a well-proportion'd Form of superiority and subordination as may best resemble the Apostolical and Primitive times so far forth as the different condition of the times and the exigences of all considerable circumstances will admit If this Proposal be embraced as there is no reason why it should not then all such things must be retrieved which were unquestionably of the Primitive practice but have been grown out of use through the length and corruption of times Such are the restoring of the Presbyteries of several Churches as the Senate to the Bishop with whole counsel and advice all things were done in the Primitive Church The contracting of Dioceses into such a compass as may be fitted for the personal inspection of the Bishop and care of himself and the Senate the placing of Bishops in all great Towns of resort especially County Towns that according to the ancient course of the Church its Government may be proportioned to the Civil Government The constant preaching of the Bishop in some Churches of his charge and residence in his Diocese The solemnity of Ordinations with the consent of the people The observing Provincial Synods twice every year The employing of none in judging Church matters but the Clergy These are things unquestionably of the Primitive practice and no argument can be drawn from the present state of things why they are not as much if not more necessary then ever And therefore all who appeal to the practice of the Primitive Church must condemn themselves if they justifie the neglect of them But I only touch at these things my design being only to lay a foundation for a happy union Lastly What Form of Government is determined by lawfull authority in the Church of God ought so far to be submitted to as it contains nothing repugnant to the Word of God So that let mens judgements be what they will concerning the Primitive Form seeing it hath been proved that that Form doth not bind unalterably and necessarily it remains that the determining of the Form of Government is a matter of liberty in the Church and what is so
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-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
Coactive nor meerly Arbitrary viz. such a one as immediately results from Divine Institution and doth suppose consent to submit to it as a necessary Duty in all the members of this Society This Power it is evident is not meerly Arbitrary either in the Governours or Members for the Governours derive their Power or right of Governing from the institution of Christ and are to be regulated by his Laws in the execution of it and the Members though their consent be necessarily supposed yet that consent is a Duty in them and that duty doth imply their submission to the Rulers of this Society neither can this power be called Coactive in the â—ense it is commonly taken for coactive power and external force are necessary correlates to each other but we suppose no such thing as a power of outward force to be given to the Church as such for that properly belongs to a Common-wealth But the power which I suppose to be lodged in the Church is such a power as depends upon a Law of a Superiour giving right to Govern to particular persons over such a Society and making it the Duty of all Members of it to submit unto it upon no other penalties then the exclusion of them from the priviledges which that Society enjoyes So that supposing such a Society as the Church is to be of Divine Institution and that Christ hath appointed Officers to rule it it necessarily follows that those Officerâ— must derive their power i. e. their right of Governing this Society not meerly from consent and confederation of parties but from that Divine Institution on which the Society depends The â—â—ht of understanding the right notion of power in the sense here â—â—â— down is certainly the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of Erastianism and that which hath given occasion to so many to question any such thing as Power in the Church especially when the more zealous then judicious defenders of it have rather chosen to hang it upon some doubtfull places of Scripture then on the very Naturâ— and Constitution of the Christian Church as a Society instituted by Iesus Christ. This being then the nature of power in general it is I suppose clear that an outward coactive force is not necessary in order to it for if some may have a Right to Govern and others may be obliged to obedience to those persons antecedently to any Civil Constitution then such persons have a just power to inflict censures upon such as transgress the Rules of the Society without any outward force It is here very impertinent to dispute what effects such censures can have upon wilful persons without a Coactive power If I can prove that there is a right to inflict them in church-Church-Officers and an Obligation to submit to them in all Offenders I am not to trouble my self with the event of such things as depend upon Divine Institutions I know it is the great Objection of the followers of Erastus that Church censures are inflicted upon persons unwilling to receive them and therefore must imply external and coactive force which is repugnant to the nature of a Church But this admits according to the Principles here established of a very easie solution for I deny not that Church Power goes upon consent but then it 's very plain here was an antecedent consent to submit to censures in the very entrance into this Society which is sufficient to denominate it a voluntary act of the persons undergoing it and my reason is this every person entring into a Society parts with his own freedom and liberty as to matters concerning the governing of it and professeth submission to the Rules and Orders of it now a man having parted with his freedom already cannot reassume it when he please for then he is under an Obligation to stand to the Covenants made at his entrance and consâ—quently his undergoing what shall be laid upon him by the Lawes of this Society must be supposed to be voluntary as depending upon his consent at first entrance which in all Societies must be supposed to hold still else there would follow nothing but confusion in all Societies in the World if every man were at liberty to break his Covenants when any thing comes to lye upon him according to the Rules of the Society which he out of some private design would be unwilling to undergo Thus much may serve to settle aright the Notion of Power the want of understanding which hath caused all the confusion of this Controversie The next thing is In what Notion we are to consider the Church which is made the subject of this Power As to which we are to consider This Power either as to its right or in actu primo or as to its exercise or in actu secundo Now if we take this Power as to the fundamental Right of it then it belongs to that Universal Church of Christ which subsists as a visible Society by vertue of that Law of Christ which makes an owning the Profession of Christianity the Duty of all Church members If we consider this Power in the exercise of it then it being impossible that the Universall Church should perform the executive part of this power relating to offences I suppose it lodged in that particular Society of Christians which are united together in one body in the community of the sâ—me Government but yet so as that the administration of this Power doth not belong to the body of the Society considered complexly but to those Officers in it whose care and charge it is to have a peculiar oversight and inspection over the Church and to redress all disorders in it Thus the visive faculty is fundamentally lodged in the Soul yet all exterior acts of sight are performed by the Eyes which are the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Overseers of the Body as the other are of the Church so that the exercise and administration of this power belongs to the speciall Officers and Governours of the Church none else being capable of exercising this Power of the Church as such but they on whom it is settled by the Founder of the Church it 's self This Society of the Church may be again considered either as subsisting without any influence from the Civil Power or as it is owned by and incorporated into a Christian State I therefore demand Whether it be absolutely necessary for the subsistence of this Christian Society to be upheld by the Civil Power or no And certainly none who consider the first and purest Ages of the Christian Church can give any entertainment to the Affirmative because then the Church flourished in it's greatest purity not onely when not upheld but when most violently opposed by the Civil Power If so then it 's being united with the Civil State is onely accidental as to the constitution a Church and if this be onely accidental then it must be supposed furnished with every thing requisite to it 's well ordering accidentally to
any such Union and abstractly from it For can we imagine our Blâ—ssed Saviour should institute a Society and leave it destitute of means to uphold it's self unless it fell into the hands of the civil Power or that he left every thing tending thereto meerly to Prudence and the Arbitrary constitutions of the persons joyning together in this Society Did our Saviour take care there should be a Society and not provide for means to uphold it Nay it is evident he not onely appointed a Society but Officers to rule it Had those Officers then a Right to Govern it or no by vertue of Christs institution of them if not they were rather Bibuli than Caesares Cyphers than Consuls in the Church of God If they had a power to Govern doth not that necessarily imply a Right to inflict censures on Offenders unless we will suppose that either there can be no Offenders in a Christian Church or that those Offenders do not vâ—olate the Laws of the Society or there be some Prohibition for them to exercise their power over them which is to give power with one hand and take it away with the other or that this power cannot extend so far as to exclude any from the Priviledges of the Church which is the thing to be discussed Having thus cleared our way I now come to the Resolution of the Question its self in order to which I shall endeavour to demonstrate with what evidence the Subjâ—ct is capable of these following things First that the Church is a peculiar Society in its own Nature distinct from the Common-wealth Secondly that the power of the Church over its members doth not arise from meer confederation or consent of Parties Thirdly That this Power of the Church doth extend to the exclusion of offenders from the Priviledges of it Fourthly That the Fundamental Rights of the Church do not escheat to the Common-wealth upon their being united in a Christian State If these Principles be established the Churches Power will stand upon them as on a firm and unmoveable Basis. I begin with the first That the Church is a peculiar Society in its own Nature distinct from the Common-wealth which I prove by these Arguments 1. Those Societies which are capable of subsisting apart from each other are really and in their own Nature distinct from one another but so it is with the Church and Common wealth For there can be no greater Evidence of a Reall Distinction than Mutual Separation and I think the proving the possibility of the Souls existing separate from the body is one of the strongest Arguments to prove it to be a substance really distinct from the body to which it is united although we are often fain to go the other way to work and to prove possibility of separation from other Arguments evincing the Soul to be a distinct substance but the reason of that is for want of evidence as to the state of separate Souls and theiâ— visible existence which is repugnant to the immateriality of their natures But now as to the matter in hand we have all evidence desirable for we are not put to prove possibility of separation meerly from the different constitution of the thingâ— united but we have evidence to Sense of it that the Church hath subsisted when it hath been not onely separated from but persecuted by all civil power It is with many men as to the Union of Church and State as it is with others as to the Union of the Soul and Body when they observe how close the Union is and how much the Soul makes use of the Animal Spirits in most of its Operations and how great a sympathy there is between them that like Hippocrates his Twins they laugh and weep together they are shrewdly put to it how to fancy the Soul to be any thing else than a more vigorous mode of matter so these observing how close an Union and Dependence there is between the Church and State in a Christian Common-wealth and how much the Church is beholding to the civil power in the Administration of its functions are apt to think that the Church is nothing but a higher mode of a Common-wealth considered as Christian. But when it is so evident that the Church hath and may subsist supposing it abstracted from all Civil Power it may be a sufficient demonstration that however neer they may be when united yet they are really and in their own nature distinct from each other Which was the thing to be proved 2. Those are distinct Societies which have every thing distinct in their nature from each other which belong to the Constitution or Government of them but this is evident as to the Church and Common-wealth which will appear because their Charter is distinct or that which gives them their being as a Society Civil Societies are founded upon the necessity of particular mens parting with their peculiar Rights for the preservation of themselves which was the impulsive cause of their entring into societies but that which actually speâ—ks them to be a society is the mutual consent of the several partyes joyning together whereby they make themselves to bee one Body and to have one Common Interest So Cicero de Repub. defines Populus to bee coe'us multitudinis juris consensu utilitatis communione sociatus There is no doubt but Gods general providence is as evidently seen in bringing the World into societies and making them live under Government as in disposing all particular events which happen in those Societies but yet the way which Providence useth in the constitution of these societies is by inclining men to consent to associate for their mutual benefit and advantage So that natural Reason consulting for the good of mankind as to those Rights which men enjoy in common with each other was the main foundation upon which all civil Societies were erected Wee finde no positive Law enactiâ—g the beeing of Civil Societies because Nature its self would prompt men for their own conveniencies to enter into them But the ground and foundation of that Society which we call a Church is a matter which Natural Reason and common Notions can never reach to and therefore an â—ssociating for the preserving of such may be a Philosophical Society but a Christian it cannot be And they that would make a Christian Church to be nothing else but a Society of Essens or an 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of Pythagoreans do either not understand or not consider whereon this Christian Society is founded for it is evident they look on it as a meerly voluntary thing that is not at all setled by any Divine positive Law The truth is there is no principle more consistent with the opinion of those who deny any Church power in a Christian state then this is and it is that which every one who will make good his ground must be driven to for it is evident that in matters meerly voluntary and depending
only on confederation such things being lyable to a Magistrates power there can be no plea from mutual consent to justifie any opposition to supream authority in a Common wealth But then how such persons can bee Christians when the Magistrates would have them to bee otherwise I cannot understand nor how the primitive Martyrs were any other then a company of Fools or mad-men who would hazard their lives for that which was a meer arbitrary thing and which they had no necessary obligation upon them to profess Mistake me not I speak not here of meer acts of discipline but of the duty of outward professing Christianity if this be a duty then a Christian society is setled by a positive Law if it be not a duty then they are fools who suffer for it So that this question resolved into its principles leads us higher than we think for and the main thing in debate must bee Whether there be an obligation upon conscience for men to associaâ—e in the profession of Christianity or no If there be then the Church which is nothing else but such an association is established upon a positive Law of Christ if there be not then those inconveniences follow which are already mentioned Wee are told indeed by the Leviathan with confidence enough that no precepts of the Gospel are Law till enacted by civil authority but it is little wonder that hee who thinks an immaterial substance implyes a contradiction should think as much of calling any thing a Law but what hath a civil sanction But I suppose all those who dare freely own a supream and infinite essence to have been the Creator and to be the Ruler of the World will acknowledge his Power to oblige conscience without being beholding to his own creature to enact his Laws that men might bee bound to obey them Was the great God sain to bee be holding to the civil authority hee had over the Iewish Common wealth their government being a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to make his Laws obligatory to the consciences of the Iews What had not they their beings from God and can there be any greater ground of obligation to obedience than from thence Whence comes civil power to have any Right to oblige men more than God considered as Governour of the World can have Can there be indeed no other Laws according to the Leviathans Hypothesis but only the Law of nature and civil Laws But I pray whence comes the obligation to either of these that these are not as arbitrary as all other agreements are And is it not as strong a dictate of nature as any can bee supposing that there is a God that a creature which receives its being from another should be bound to obey him not only in the resultancies of his own nature but with the arbitrary constitutions of his will Was Adam bound to obey God or no as to that positive precept of eating the forbidden fruit if no civil Sanction had been added to that Law The truth is such Hypotheses as these are when they are followed close home will be sound to Kennel in that black Den from whence they are loath to be thought to have proceeded And now supposing that every full Declaration of the will of Christ as to any positive Institution hath the force and power of a Law upon the consciences of all to whom it is sufficiently proposed I proceed to make appear that such a divine positive Laew there is for the existence of a Church as a visible body and society in the World by which I am far from meaning such a conspicuous society that must continue in a perpetual visibility in the same place I find not the least intimation of any such thing in Scripture but that there shall alwayes bee somewhere or other in the world a society owning and professing Christianity may bee easily deduced from thence and especially on this account that our Saviour hath required this as one of the conditions in order to eternal felicity that all those who believe in their hearts that Iesus is the Christ must likewise confess him with their mouths to the world and therefore as long at there are men to believe in Christ there must be men that will not be ashamed to associate on the account of the Doctrine he hath promulged to the world That one Phrase in the New Testament so frequently used by our blessed Saviour of the Kingdome of Heaven importing a Gospel-state doth evidently declare a society which was constituted by him on the principles of the Gospel Covenant Wherefore should our Saviour call Disciples and make Apostles and send them abroad with full commission to gather and initiate Disciples by Baptism did he not intend a visible society for his Church Had it not been enough for men to have cordially believed the truth of the Gospel but they must bee entred in a solemn visible way and joyn in participation of visible Symbols of bread and wine but that our Saviour required external profession and society in the Gospel as a necessary duty in order to obtaining the priviledges conveyed by his Magna Charta in the Gospel I would fain know by what argument wee can prove that any humane Legislator did ever intend a Common wealth to be governed according to his mode by which we cannot prove that Christ by a positive Law did command such a society as should be governed in a visible manner as other societies are Did he not appoint officers himself in the Church and that of many ranks and degrees Did he not invest those Officers with authority to rule his Church Is it not laid as a charge on them to take heed to that flock over which God had made them Over-seers Are there not Rules laid down for the peculiar exercise of their Government over the Church in all the parts of it Were not these Officers admitted into theâ—â— function by a most solemn visible Rite of Imposition of Hands And are all these solemn transactions a meer piece of sacred Pageantry And they will appear to bee little more if the Society of the Church bee a meer arbitrary thing depending only upon consent and confederation and not subsisting by vertue of any Charter from Christ or some positive Law requiring all Christians to joyn in Church society together But if now from hence it appears as certainly it cannot but appear that this Society of the Church doth subsist by vertue of a Divine positive Law then it must of necessity be distinct from a civil Society and that on these accounts First because there is an antecedent obligation on conscience to associate on the account of Christianity whether Humane Laws prohibit or command it From whence of necessity it follows that the constitution of the Church is really different from that of the Commonwealth because whether the Common wealth be for or against this Society all that own it are bound to profess it openly and declare
themselves members of it Whereas were the Church and Commonwealth really and formally the same all obligation to Church society would arise meerly from the Legislative Power of the Common wealth But now there being a Divine Law binding in conscience whose obligation cannot bee superseded by any Humane Law it is plain and evident where are such vastly different obligations there are different Powers and in this sense I know no incongruity in admitting imperium in imperio if by it wee understand no external coactive power but an internal power laying obligation on conscience distinct from the power lodged in a Commonwealth considered as such An outward coactive power was alwayes disowned by Christ but certainly not an internal Power over conscience to oblige all his Disciples to what Duties hee thought fit Secondly I argue from those Officers whose rights to govern this Society are founded on that Charter whereby the Society it self subsists Now I would willingly know why when our Saviour disowned all outward power in the World yet hee should constitute a Society and appoint Officers in it did hee not intend a peculiar distinct Society from the other Societies of the world And therefore the argument frequently used against Church-power because it hath no outward force with it by the constitution of Christ is a strong argument to me of the peculiarity of a Christian society from a Commonwealth because Christ so instituted it as not to have it ruled at first by any outward force or power When Christ saith his Kingdome was not of this world he implies that he had a Society that was governed by his Laws in the world yet distinct from all mundane Societies had not our Saviour intended his Church to have been a peculiar Society distinct from a Commonwealth it is hard to conceive why our Saviour should interdict the Apostles the use of a civil coactive power Or why instead of sending abroad Apostles to preach the Gospel hee did not employ the Governours of Commonwealths to have inforced Christianity by Laws and temporal edicts and the several Magistrates to have impowred several persons under them to preach the Gospel in their several Territories And can any thing bee more plain by our Saviours taking a contrary course than that hee intended a Church society to bee distinct from civil and the power belonging to it as well as the Officers to bee of a different nature from that which is settled in a Commonwealth I here suppose that Christ hath by a positive Law established the Government of his Church upon Officers of his own appointment which I have largely prove â—â—sewhere and therefore suppose it now Thirdly I arguâ—â—â—om the peculiar rights belonging to these Societies For if every one born in the Commonwealth have not thereby a right to the priviledges of the Church nor every one by being of the Church any right to the benefits of the Commonwealth it must necessarily follow that these are distinct from one another If any one by being of the Common-wealth hath right to Church-priviledges then every one born in a Common-wealth may challenge a right to the Lords Supper without Baptism or open professing Christianity which I cannot think any will be very ready to grant Now there being by Divine appointment the several rights of Baptism and the Lords Supper as peculiar badges of the Church as a visible Society it is evident Christ did intend it a Society distinct from the Common wealth Fourthly I argue from the different ends of these societies A Common-wealth is constituted for civil ends and the Church for spiritual for ends are to be judged by the primary constitution but now it is plain the end of civil society is for preservation of mens rights as men therefore Magistracy is called by St. Peter 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but this Christian society doth not respect men under the connotation of men but as Christians The answer given to this is very short and insufficient when it is said that every man in a Commonwealth is to act upon spiritual accounts and ends For there is a great deal of difference between Christianities having an influence upon mens actings in a Commonwealth and making a society the same with a Commonwealth To argue therefore from one to another is a shortness of discourse I cannot but wonder at unless it could be proved that Christianity aymed at nothing else but regulating men in the affairs of a Commonwealth which is a task I suppose will not be undertaken Lastly I argue from the peculiar offences against this society which are or â—ay bee distinct from those against a Commonwealth I deny not but most times they are the same but frequently they differ and when they are the same yet the consideration of them is different in the Church and Common wealth for which I shall suppose the six arguments produced in the last chapter of the first part to stand good which will strongly hold to exâ—â—â—â—unication in the Christian Church though there produce 〈…〉 ly for the Iewish I would fain know what is to bee done in many offences known to bee against the Laws of Christ and which tend to the dishonour of the Christian society which the civil and Municipal Laws either do not or may not take cognizance of Thus much may serve as I think to make evident that the Church in its own nature is a peculiar society distinct from a Commonwealth which was the first proposition to bee proved The second is That the power of the Church over it's members in case of offences doth not arise meerly from confederation and consent though it doth suppose it This Church power may be considered two wayes Either first as it implyes the right in some of inflicting censures Or secondly as it implyes in others the duty of submitting to censures inflicted now as to both these I shall prove that their original is higher than meer confederation 1. As to the right of inflicting censures on these accounts First What ever society doth subsist by vertue of a divine constitution doth by vertue thereof derive all power for it's preservation in peace unity and purity but it is plain that a power of censuring offenders is necessary for the Churches preservation in peace and purity and it is already proved that the Church hath its Charter from Christ and therefore from him it hath a power to inflict punishments on Offenders suitable to the Nature of the Society they are of I am very prone to think that the ground of all the mistakes on this subject have risen from hence that some imprudently enough have fixt the original of this Power on some ambiguous places of Scripture which may and it may bee ought to bee taken in a different sense and their adversaries finding those places weak and insufficient proofs of such a power have from thence rejected any such kind of power at all But certainly if wee should reject every truth that is weakly
proved by some who have undertaken it I know no opinion would bid so saiâ— for acceptance as Scepticism and that in reference to many weighty and important truthâ— for how weakly have some proved the existence of a Deity the immortality of the soul and the truth of the Scriptures by such arguments that if it were enough to overthroâ—â— an opinion to bee able to answer some Arguments brought for it Atheisme it self would become plausible It can be then no evidence that a thing is not true because some Arguments will not prove it and truly as to the matter in hand I am fully of the opinion of the excellent H. Grotius speaking of Excommunication in the Christian Church Neque adâ—am râ—m peculiare praeceptum desideratur eum Ecclestae coetu à Christo semel constituto omnia illa imperata censeri debent sine quibus ejus coeiûs puritas retineri non potest And therefore men spend needless pains to prove an institution of this power by some positive precept when Christs founding his Church as a peculiar Society is sufficient proof hee hath endowed it with this fundamental Right without which the Society were arena sino calce a company of persons without any common tye of union among them for if there bee any such union it must depend on some conditions to bee performed by the members of that Society which how could they require from them if they have not power to exclude them upon non performance 2. I prove the divine original of this power from the special appointment and designation of particular Officers by Iesus Christ for the ruling of this Society Now I say that Law which provides there shall bee Officers to Govern doth give them power to govern suitably to the Nature of their society Either then you must deny that Christ hath by an unalterable Institution appointed a Gospel Ministry or that this Ministry hath no Power in the Church or that their Power extends not to excommunication The first I have already proved the second follows from their appointment for by all the titles given to Church Officers in Scripture it appears they had a Power over the Church as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 All which as you well know do import a right to Govern the Society over which they are set And that this power should not extend to a power to exclude convict Offenders seems very strange when no other punishment can be more suitable to the nature of the Society than this is which is a debarring him from the priviledges of that Society which the offender hath so much dishonoured Can there be any punishment less imagined towards contumacious offenders then this is or that carries in it less of outward and coactive force it implying nothing but what the offender himself freely yielded to at his entrance into this Society All that I can find replyed by any of the Adversaryes of the opinion I here assert to the argument drawn from the Institution and Titles of the Officers of the Church is that all those titles which are given to the Ministers of the Gospel in the New Testament that do import Rule and Government are all to be taken in a Spiritual sense as they are Christs Ministers and Ambassadors to preach his Word and declare his Will to his Church So that all power such persons conceive to lye in those Titles is only Doctrinal and declarative but how true that is let any one judge that considers these things 1. That there was certainly a power of Discipline then in the Churches constituted by the Apostles which is most evident not onely from the passages relating to Offenders in Saint Pauls Epistles especially to the Corinthians and Thessalonians but from the continued Practice of succeeding Ages manifested by Tertullian Cyprian and many others There being then a power of Discipline in Apostolical Churches there was a necessity it should be administred by some Persons who had the care of those Churches and who were they but the severall Pastors of them It being then evident that there was such a Power doth it not stand to common sense it should be implyed in such Titles which in their Naturall Importance do signifie a Right to Govern as the names of Pastors and Rulers do 2. There is a diversity in Scripture made between Pastors and Teachers Ephes. 4. 11. Though this may not as it doth not imply a necessity of two distinct Offices in the Church yet it doth a different respect and connotation in the same person and so imports that Ruling carries in it somewhat more then meer Teaching and so the power implyed in Pastors to be more then meerly Doctrinal which is all I contend for viz. A right to govern the flock committed to their charge 3. What possible difference can be assigned between the Elders that Rule well and those which labour in the Word and Doctrine 1 Timothy 5. 17. if all their Ruling were meerly labouring in the Word and Doctrine and all their Governing nothing but Teaching I intend not to prove an Office of Rulers distinct from Teachers from hence which I know neither this place nor any other will do but that the formal conception of Ruling is different from that of Teaching 4. I argue from the Analogy between the Primitive Churches and the Synagogues that as many of the names were taken from thence where they carried a power of Discipline with them so they must do in some proportion in the Church or it were not easie understanding them It is most certain the Presbyters of the Synagogue had a power of Ruling and can you conceive the Bishops and Presbyters of the Church had none when the Societies were much of the same Constitution and the Government of the one was transscribed from the other as hath been already largely proved 5. The acts attributed to Pastor in Scripture imply a power of Governing distinct from meer Teaching such are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 used for a right to Govern Matth. 2. 6. Revel 12. 5. 19. 15. which word is attributed to Pastors of Churches in reference to their flocks Acts 20. 28. 1 Pet. 5. 2. and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is applyed to Ministers when they are so frequently called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which notes praesidentiam cum potestate for Hesychius renders it by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 at Athens had certainly a power of Government in them 6. The very word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is attributed to those who have over-sight of Churches 1 Cor. 12. 8. by which it is certainly evident that a power more than Doctrinal is understood as that it could not then be understood of a power meerly civil And this I suppose may suffice to vindicate this Argument from the Titles of Church Officers in the New Testament that they are not insignificant things but the persons who enjoyed them had a right to govern the Society over which the
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-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
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
right of supream management of this power in an external way doth fall into the Magistrates hands Which may consist in these following things 1. A right of prescribing Laws for the due management of Church-censures 2. A right of bounding the manner of proceeding in câ—â—â—â—â—res that in a seâ—â—led Christian-state matters of so great weight bee not left to the arbitrary pleasure of any church-Church-Officers nor such censures inflicted but upon an evident conviction of such great offences which tend to the dishonour of the christian-Christian-church and that in order to the amendment of the offenders life 3. The right of adding temporal and civil sanctions to Church-censures and so enforcing the spiritual weapons of the Church with the more keen and sharp ones of the Civil State Thus I assert the force and efficacy of all Church censures in foro humano to flow from the Civil power and that there is no proper effect following any of them as to Civil Rights but from the Magistrates sanction 4 To the Magistrate belongs the right of appeals in case of unjust censures not that the Magistrate can repeal a just censure in the Church as to its spiritual effectâ— but he may suspend the temporal effect of it in which case it is the duty of Pastors to discharge their office and acquiesce But this power of the Magistrate in the supream ordering of Ecclesiastical as well as Civil Causes I have fully asserted and cleared already From which it follows That as to any outward effects of the power of excommunication the person of the Supream Magistrate must be exempted both because the force of these censures doth flow from him in a Christian State and that there otherwise would be a progress in infinitum to know whether the censure of the Magistrate were just or no. I conclude then that though the Magistrate hath the main care of ordering things in the Church yet the Magistrates power in the Church being cumulative and not privative the Church and her Officers retain the fundamental right of inflicting censures on offenders Which was the thing to be proved Dedit Deus his quoque Finem Books sold by Henry Mortlocke at the Phoenix in St. Pauls Church-yard near the little North door A Rational Account of the grounds of Protestant Religion being a Vindication of the Lord Arch bishop of Canterbury's Relation of a Conference c. from the pretended Answer by T. C. By Edward Stilling fleet Origines Sacrae or A Rational account of the grounds of Christian Faith as to the Truth and Divine Authority of the Scriptures and the matters therein contained by the same Author in 4o. Bainâ— upon the Ephesians Trapp on the Proverbs Ecclesiastes Canticles with the Major Prophets being his third Volume of Annotations on the whole Bible Greenhill upon Ezekiel Hall upon Anos Brooks on the Necessity Excellency Rarity and Beauty of Holiness Knowledge and Practice or A plain Discourse of the Chief things necessary to be Known Believed and Practised in order to Salvation by Samuel Cradock Scheciâ—ah or A Demonstration of the Divine Presence in Places of Religious Worship By Iohn Stillingfleet A Treatise of Divine Meditation by Iohn Ball published by Mr. Simeon Ash. The Morall Philosophy of the Stoicks turned out of French into English by Charles Cotton Esq An Improvement of the Sea upon the 9 Nauâ—icall Verses of the 107. Psalm Wherein among other things you have A full and delightfull Description of all those many various and multitudinous Objects which are beheld through the Lords Creation both on Sea in Sea and on Land viz. All sorts and kinds of Fish Fowl and Beasts whether Wild or Tâ—me all sorts of Trees and Fruits all sorts of People Cities Towns and Countreys by Daniel Pell Baxters Call c. Hist. Eccl. l. 7. c. 19. § 1. §. 2. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Arist Ethic l. 5. c. 6 Grot. de jure bâ—lli pac lib. 1. cap. 1. Sect. 4. Lâ—ss de justit jure l. 2. c. 2. Dub. 1. Etymol Philol. voc jus Etymol l. 5. cap. 3. Ethic. l. 5. cap. 2. Mat. 15 9. Isa. 29. 11. Tertull. de Orat. cap. 12 v. Herald digress lib. 2. cap. 2. in Tertull. Alex. Alensis part 3. q. 27. m. 3. §. 3. Rom. 4. 8. §. 4. Ethic. l. 5. cap. 10. V. Selden de jure Nat. apud Ebâ—ae lib. 1. c. 7 8. Mol. de just Iur. p. 1 disp 3. Alphons de leg pur l. 2. c. 14. §. 5. Exercit. Eccles. advers Baâ— exer 16. sect 43. Sâ—id de jure Nat. apud Ebr. l. 1. cap. 10. Colloq â—um Tryph. Judâ—o Origin lib. 16. cap. 10. V. Gâ—ot in Luc. 1. 6. Maimon de fundam legis cap. 9. sect 1. Abarb. de Capit. fidei cap. 8. p. 29. Ed. Vorstii Gal. 3. 24. §. 6. Gen. 22. Deut. 5. 15 Act 15. 29. Oraâ— â—â—â—â— Caeâ—iu §. 7. Heb. 6. 1â— Catech. Racov cap. 4. Acts 3. 38. § 8â— Matth. 11. 21. 1 John 2. 6. 1 Peâ— 2â— 22. Gen. 2. 2. Matth. 16. 19. 18. 18. § 1. Hypoth 1. Grot. de jure bellâ— c. lib 1. câ—p 1. s. 10. Prâ—sat in Cod. Canon Eccl. Aâ—ric p. 14. Less de just jure l. 2. c. 19. dâ—b 3. n. 12. Suarez de leg lib. 2 cap. 9. sect 6. Orig. lib. 3. C. Celsum p. 154. ed. Coâ— â— C. Celsum l. 5. p. 147. § 2. Covarr c. 10. de tesiâ—mâ—n 11â— Hobs de civ cap. 1 s. 11. Ann. §. 3. Prop. 3. Paulus l. 1. D. de â—urtis Vâ—pian lib. Post. D. de verb sig V. Grot. de jure belli c. lib. 2. cap. 4 sect 8. §. 4. Judg. 6. 18 1 Sam. 7. 1 4. 16. 9. 10. 3. 2 Sam. 15. 18 c. Exerciâ— in Gen. 42. Isa. 66. 3. Gen. 4 3 4. Heb. 1â— 4. §. 5. Isa. 49. 23. Euseb. vit Constant. l. 4. c. 24. De Imp. sum Potest cap. 2. l. 1. In Iud. c. 19. Panstrat Cath. Tom. 2. l 15. cap. 6. In loc To. 3. Ed. Aeâ—on p. 189. Ed. 1607. De Episcop Const. Magn. § 7. Aristot. Ethic. lib. 6. c. 6. Matth. 28. 18. Heb. 13. 17. V. Peâ—â— Maâ—tyr in 1 Sam. 14. Whitaker â— cont 4. q. 7. Cameron de Eccles. p. 386. To. 1. op Lib. 2. c. Parmen â—a 1 Sam. 8. Loc. Com. Class 4. c. 5â— sect 11. Papin l. 41 D. de poenis Hotâ—oman Com. v. juris v sanct Cicero ad Arâ—ic l. 3. ep 23. §. 8. Institut l. 4. cap. 17. s. 43. cap. 15. s. 19. Nature of Episc. chap. 5. V. Forbes Iren. lib. 1. cap. 13. Rom 14. 23. §. 9. Grat. de jure belli pacis lib. 2. cap 13. sect 7. §. 10. Gal. 5. 1. D. Sanderson de oblig cons. prael 6. s. 5. Gal. 5. 2. Acts 16. 3. Gal. 4. 9 10 11. Coloss. 2. 16 18 19. Rom. 14. 3 6 21. 1 Cor. 10. 24. Controv. 4. quaest 7. cap. 2. In 1 Sam. 14. Aug. eâ— 118. ad Ianuar. §. 11. Gal. 5. 2.