2. I prove the divine original of this power from the special appointment and designation of particular officers by Jesus Christ for the ruling this society Now I say that Law which provides there shall bee officers to govern doth give them power to govern suitable 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 bee 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 bee 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 yeilded 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 bee taken in a spirituall 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 onely 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 only from the passages relating to offendors 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 several 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 natural 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 Word and Doctrine 1 Tim. 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 transcribed from the other as hath been already largely proved 5. The acts attributed to Pastors 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 eum potestate for Hesychius renders is 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 then 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-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 general 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 denyed 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 Kingdom 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 doth 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 interpretation of the power of the Keyes is far from invalidating the power of the Church as to its censuring offendors all that it pretends to is only 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 Apostles their commission to go preach and baptize c. Matth. 28.19 Is it not therefore far more rational that the power of the Keyes here given should respect the founding of a Church and admission into it then 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 Jews and Gentiles So the Jews by his Sermon at Pentecost when about 3000. souls were brought into the Church of Christ. So the Gentiles as is most evident in the story of Cornelius 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 Peters 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 successors 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 as Simon Magus is said to be in the bonds of iniquity 3. The Metaphor of the Keyes referrs most to admission into the house and excluding out of it rather then 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 John 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 Vnde intelligimus non nisi in Ecclesiâ praepositis in Evangelicâ lege ac Dominicâ ordinatiâ—ne fundatis licere baptizare remissam peccatorum dare foris autem nec ligari aliquid posse nec solvi ubi non sit qui ligare possit aut solvere That which I now inferr from this discourse is that the power of the Church doth 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 ex confederatâ disciplinâ which was the thing to be proved The like 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 profession 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 offendors 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 antecedently 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 cenfederatae disciplinae whereas this power hath been made appear to be derived from a higher original then the meer arbitrary consent of the several members of the Church associating together And how far 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 Jews in their Synagogues It cannot be denyed 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 this 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 offendors 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 congruously to their office inflict any other mulct upon offendors 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 offendors 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 colum 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 Lords 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 is not visibly discerned but in administration and participation of Gospel ordinances therefore exclusion doth chiefly refer to these and because the Lords Supper is one of the highest priviledges 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 potest majus potest etiam minus which will hold as well in moral as natural power if there be no prohibition to the contrary nor peculiar reason as to the one more then to the other 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 Jews viz. whether it were 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 successful 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 alsufficient sacrifice offered for the expiation of sin and consequently the subsequent priviledges do not immediately relate to the obtaining of that but a grateful comemmoration of the death 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 founded on so sacred a foundation as the most Christian and religious persons To this I know nothing can be objected but that first the passeover was commemorative among the Jews 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 people 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 withall 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 be debard 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
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 withall how nearly 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 fancyed pollution in Sacris from the company of wicked men but from the dishonour reflecting on the Society from such unworthy persons partaking of the highest 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 Grecian Common-wealths 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 lie 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 meant 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 authoritativly 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 prviledges the enjoyment of which doth depend upon abstaining from those offences which he wilfully falls into especially if contumacy be joyned with them as it is before excommunication for then nothing is done forcibly towards him for he first relinquisheth his right before the Church-Governour declares him excluded the Society So that the offendor 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 eoclesiae as a member of the Church and so his hearing may be well joined 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 censures that in a settled Christian State matters of so great weight be not left to the arbitrary pleasure of any Church-officers nor such censures inflicted but upon an evident conviction of such great offences which tend to the dishonour of the Christian Church and that in order to the amendment of the offendors 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 effects 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 §. 1. §. 2. §. 3. §. 4. §. 5. §. 6. §. 7. §. 8. §. 9. §. 10. §. 11. §. 12. Apud Agust de Civit. de l. 2. c. 21. §. 13. §. 14. §. 15. §. 16. Iren. p. 2. c. 3. Iren. p. 1. c. 8. §. 4. §. 17. in Luk. 6.22 §. 18. §. 19. Matth. 16.19 Iren. p. 2. ch 5. §. 5. p. 212. Acts 2.41 1 Pet. 3.21 Tit. 3.5 Acts 8.33 Isa. 22.20 Cypr. Ep. 73. sect 6. §. 20. §. 21. Heb. 9.22 §. 22. 1 Cor. 5.11 2 Thess. 3.14 §. 23. Iren. p. 1. c. 2. sect 7.
the subject 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 bee 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 bee 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 bee a substance really distinct from the body to which it is united although wee are often fain to go the other way to work and to prove possibility of separation from other arguments evincing the soul to bee a distinct substance but the reason of that is for want of evidence as to the state of separate souls and their visible existence which is repugnant to the immateriality of their natures But now as to the matter in hand wee have all evidence desirable for wee are not put to prove possibilâ—â—y of separation meerly from the different constitution of the things united but wee have evidence to sense of it that the Churh 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 Hyppocrates his Twins they laugh and weep ' together they are shrewdly put to it how to fancy the Soul to bee any thing else then 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 bee 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 bee 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 speaks them to bee a society is the mutual consent of the several parties joyning together whereby they make themselves to bee one Body and to have one common interest So Cicero de Repub. defines populus to bee caetus multitudinis juris consensu et 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 mankinde 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 enacting the beeing of civil societies because nature it's 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 associating for the preserving of such may bee a Philosophical Society but a Christian it cannot bee And that would make a Christian Church to bee nothing else but a society of Essens or an 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of Pythagorians who 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 bee driven to for it is evident that in matters meerly voluntary and depending only on consideration 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 arbritrary thing and which they had no necessary obligation upon them to profess Mistake mee not I speak not here of meer acts of discipline but of the duty of outward professing Christianity if this bee a duty then a Christian society is setled by a positive Law if it bee not a duty then they are fools who suffer for it So that this question resolved into it's principles leads us higher than wee think for and the main thing in debate must bee whether there bee an obligation upon conscience for men to associate in the profession of Christianity or no If there bee then the Church which is nothing else but such an association is established upon a positive Law of Christ if there bee not then those inconveniencies 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 implies a contradiction
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 want of understanding the right notion of power in the sense here set down is certainiy the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of Erastianisme 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 doubtful places of Scripture then on the very nature and constitution of the Christian Church as a Society instituted by Jesus 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 bee 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 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 Churchpower 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 freedome 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 freedome already cannot reassume it when hee please for then hee is under an obligation to stand to the Covenants made at his entrance and consequently his undergoing what shall bee laid upon him by the Laws of this society must bee supposed to bee voluntary as depending upon his consent at first entrance which in all societies must bee 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 hee out of some private design would bee 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 wee are to consider the Church which is made the subject of this power As to which wee are to consider This power either as to it 's right or in actu primo or as to it's exercise or in actu secundo Now if wee 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 wee consider this power in the exercise of it then it being impossible that the universal 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 same 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 special 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 setled by the founder of the Church it 's self This Society of the Church may bee 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 bee absolutely necessary for the subsistence of this Christian society to bee 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 only when not upheld but when most violently opposed by the civil power if so then it 's being united with the civil state is only accidental as to the constitution of a Church and if this bee only accidental then it must bee supposed furnished with every thing requisite to it 's well ordering antecedenty to any such union and abstractly from it For can wee imagine our Blessed 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 hee left every thing tending thereto meerly to prudence and the arbritrary constitutions of the persons joyning together in this society Did our Saviour take care there should bee a society and not provide for means to uphold it Nay it is evident hee not only 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 〈◊〉 will suppose that either there can bee no offenders in a Christian Church or that those offenders do not violate the Laws of the society or there bee 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 bee 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