two cases of Religion the first of Idolaters the second of those that disobey the Consistory But it is to be considered that Idolatry is a sin which the light of nature convinceth and is always attended with the consequences of such horrible sins as the Apostle declareth that God suffered the Gentiles to fall into for their Idolatries in the beginning of the Epistle to the Romanes Besides that Penalty by the Law lies but in respect of the seven Nations whom God for their Idolatries and the consequences thereof such as I have mentioned gave up to destruction by the sword of his people on whom he bestowed their inheritance And in respect of Israelites whom God having entred into Covenant with on condition to serve him alone had thereupon endowed with Secular power to punish the transgressors of it So that the power of inflicting death in these cases proceedeth upon the sentence of destruction and death pronounced by God against the seven Nations and committed to the execution of his People And upon the Soveraign power estated upon the people by virtue of their Covenant with God Which though more then Humane for the Originall yet must needs be available according to Humane Right to the same effect which the same Power established by Title of Humane Right is able to produce And therefore this Penalty by these Laws cannot belong to any that absolutely refuse to submit to Christianity Besides it is to be observed that those acts which this Law punishes with death are specified by the Law to be the worshipping of the Sun and Moon and other Gods Exod. XXII 20. Deut. XVII 3. the perswading to worship other Gods and for Cities to fall from God to doe it Deut. XIII 5 6 12. and therefore this punishment cannot be extended to other Acts which by interpretation and consequence may be argued into the generall nature or rather notion of Idolatries A thing necessary to be said because it is manifest that there have been those that have made reading Service or a Sermon much more kneeling at the Communion Idolatry who if they should proceed to improve their madnesse to that consequence which naturally it produceth must proceed to destroy Civile Society by destroying all them whom in their madnesse they take for Idolaters as that wretched person did his Father for perswading him to receive the Communion kneeling As for those that disobeyed the Consistory it is to be remembred that hath been formerly observed that Religion and the Civile State of Gods ancient people made but one Society by virtue of the Law that estated them in the Land of Promise upon condition of worshipping God and governing themselves in their Civile life according to the same By consequence whereof whosoever should refuse to stand to that judgement which God by the Law appointeth to determine the differences which should arise about the interpretation and limitation of that which the Law had not expressed must indanger a breach among the people which it is all one whether you call Rebellion or Schism Now it is no inconvenience to grant that whosoever shall pretend under the Title of Christianity to trouble the Civile peace of that people and State wherein he liveth be thought guilty of such punishment as the height of his offence shall deserve Because as this crime is most capitall as nearest concerning the publick so is it most manifest that Christianity cannot be wronged by the punishment of it seeing it hath been shewed that Christianity enableth no man to trouble the publick peace So that if any man make it a part of his Religion to maintain his Religion by force being by such profession fallen from the innocence of Christianity he is justly exposed to the violence of all temporall Laws that punish those which trouble the publick peace This is the case of them that thought themselves tied in conscience by the Bull of Pius the fift against Q. Elizabeth and it is the case of all them that under any title of Religion whatsoever pretend to maintain the profession or exercise thereof by faction or force For it is easie to see that the Primitive Christians maintain themselves so against the Gentiles that supposing them no Christians yet it doth appear that they could not rightfully persecute them for their Christianity Which none can maintain but those that professe to assert their Christianity by nothing else but by suffering for it And here it is worth our noting that about the time of our Lord there was a Constitution of the Consistory against Rebellious Elders as they call them that is such as having attained the degree of Doctors of the Law should Teach any thing to be lawfull or unlawfull by the Law contrary to the determination of the Consistory that they should be put to death as you may see in Maimoni in that Title Which how far it was ever in force is hard to be said because by the Gospels we understand that the Nation had not power of life and death at that time For that it was about that time that they say it was established appears because they report it to have been made in regard of the differences then on foot between the Scholars of Hillel and Sammai which we know were not long before our Lords time This Constitution is nothing else but the limitation of that which the Law of Deut. XVII 8. establisheth to particular circumstances And upon supposition of this Constitution it is that our Lord expresseth the difference between Moses Law and his Gospel when he saith Mat. V. 19. He that shall break the least of these Commandements and teach men so shall be least in the Kingdome of heaven but he that teacheth and doeth them shall be great in the Kingdome of heaven For the very terms of that Constitution being death to him that should both teach and doe contrary to the determination of the Consistory it is manifest that our Lord alluding to that Constitution of the Synagogue declareth hereby that on the contrary there is no penalty of death upon him that should teach and doe contrary to his precepts as those of the Consistory but greater that is to be least in the Kingdome of heaven Whereby he sheweth that the Gospel appointeth no temporall punishment to those that break Christs precepts but denies not that Civile States might For the Gospel supposing and establishing Civile Society supposeth also those Penalties without which it subsisteth not And the punishment of those that violate Civile Society under the title of Christianity is not by the Gospel but by the Civile Power which it presupposeth and voideth not because Preaching that Christianity cannot be prejudiciall to States it confirmeth as to Christianity that power which all States have towards all Religions to see that they prove not prejudiciall to the publick peace We have then two cases of Religion punishable with death The first when that which is contrary to the Law of Nature is by the
alloweth of them which as it was alwayes the right of the Church to doe as I shall observe in another place so it appeareth so to be in that mariage was never celebrated among Christians without the Prayers of the Church And this observation I insist upon the more chearfully because it much strengtheneth the argument which the Church maketh for the Baptism of Infants from the Act of our Saviour in the Gospel when he blessed the Infants with Imposition of Hands For if all Imposition of Hands be an act of the publique Power of the Church allowing that which is done with it then can this Imposition of Hands signifie no lesse then that those to whom our Lord granteth it belong to his Kingdome of the Visible Church One little objection there lies against this from the incestuous person at Corinth whom S. Paul in his second Epistle seems to readmit to communion his crime being as deep as Adultery which we say the rigor of Apostolicall Discipline admitted not to Penance To which I have divers things to answer That this cannot be objected but by him that acknowledges that he was excommunicate by the former Epistle That Tertullian in his Book de Pudicitiâ disputes at large that it is not the same case which is spoken of in both Epistles That the crime here specified perhaps is not of the number of those which from the beginning were excluded from Penance But waving all this as I excepted two cases in which men were baptized without regular triall so supposing the Rule to take hold in this case it is no inconvenience to grant that S. Paul might wave the rigor of Discipline so setled as supposing there might be cause to wave it If this opinion seem new my purpose requires but these two Points that the Penance practised by the ancient Church supposed Excommunication which it only abateth and that it was instituted by the Apostles and for that there is enough said I suppose even to them that beleeve not that the Apostles excluded any kinde of crimes from Penance Besides that of S. Paul blaming the Corinthians that they were puffed up and had not rather lamented that he that had done the evil might be put from among them 1 Cor. V. 2. And again fearing that when he returned he should be forced to lament many 2 Cor. XII 21. Which if we compare with the Primitive solemnity of Excommunication which by the constitutions of the Apostles II. 16. and other ways we understand was to put the person out of the Church doors with mourning it will appear that Epiphanius is in the right in expounding this later Text to this purpose Haer. LIX num 5. The power of Excommunication then by all this is no more then the necessary consequence of the Power of admitting to Communion by Baptism Which if it imply a contract with the Church to live according to the rule of Christianity then it is forfeit to him that evidently does that which cannot stand with that rule and the Church not tied to restore it but as the person can give satisfaction to observe it for the future Now I will make short work with Erastus his long labour to prove that there is no Excommunication commanded by the Law I yeeld it And make a consequence which will be thought a strange one But I have it from the speculation of Origen in Levit Hom. XI and others why the Church should onely be inabled to Excommunicate whereas the Synagogue was inabled to put to death From the observation of S. Augustine Quaest in Deuteronom V. 38. de Fide Operibus cap. VI. and others that Excommunication in the Church is the same that the power of life and death in the Synagogue My argument is then that the Church is to have the power of Excommunication because the Synagogue had the power of life and death And the reason of the consequence this Because as the Law being the condition of the Covenant by which the benefit of the Commonwealth of Israel was due inabled to put to death such as destroyed it So the Gospel being the condition of the Covenant that makes men denizons of the spirituall Jerusalem must inable to put them from the society thereof that forfeited it It is not my intent hereby to say that there was no Excommunication under the Law For I doe beleeve that we have mention of it in Ezra X. 8. grounded if I mistake not upon the Commission of the King of Persia recorded Ezr. VII 26. for that which is here called rooting out seems to be the same that is called in the other place dividing from the Synagogue of the Captives Being indeed a kinde of temporall Outlawry to which is joined confiscation of Goods For so saith Luther truly that the greater Excommunication among Christians is every where a temporall punishment to wit in regard of some temporall punishment attending it in Christian States which in Christianity is accidentall by Act of those States in Judaisme essentiall so long as those temporall advantages which were the essentiall condition of the Law were not forfeited And this without doubt is the same punishment which the Gospels call putting out of the Synagogue Though I cannot say so peremptory for the temporall effects of it Which severall Soveraigns could easily limit to severall terms For the right that Ezra might have to introduce this penalty is clear by the Law of Deut. XVII 12. which inabling to put them to death that obeyed not the Synagogue inabled to Excommunicate to Banish to Outlaw them much more But as we see the Romanes allowed them not the power of life and death which the Persians granted them so I am not to grant that putting out of the Synagogue in the Gospel implieth the extinguishing of the civill being of any Jew The Talmud Doctors say that those that were under the greater Excommunication were to dwell in a cotage alone and to have meat and drink brought them till they died Arba Turim or Shulchan Auroh in Jore Dea Hilcoth Niddui Voherem A speculation sutable to their condition in their dispersions which no man is bound to beleeve how far it was in force and practice But suppose the Synagogue in the same condition with the Church afore Constantine injoying no privilege but to serve God according to the Law as the Church according to the Gospel And then as the Synagogue must always have power to excommunicate which had power to put to death so I say is the Church inabled by our Lord to doe what I have shewed the Apostles did doe by Mat. XVIII 18. I yeeld that the terms of binding and loosing are used by the Jews to signifie the declaring of what is prohibited and permitted by the Law But I yeeld not that it can be so understood here because the ground of this declaration ceaseth under the Gospel being derived from the sixe hundreth and thirteen Precepts of the Law and from the power
corruption of naturall light made matter of Religion as hath been said of Idolaters and as it may be said of the whole spawn of Gnosticks from Simon Magus to the Manichees their Heires and Successors which as they corrupted Christianity with Heathenisme so they tooke away the difference of good and bad and brought in under pretense of Religion such horrible uncleannesse as nature abhorres Which being by mistake of the Gentiles imposed upon the Primitive Christians as by the defense which they make for themselves they doe evidence sufficiently that they are wronged by those reports so they declare that if they were true they would not refuse the persecutions which they plead against The 2d case is when any thing prejudiciall to Civile Society is held and professed as part of Christianity For as that which is prejudiciall to the publick Peace must needs be punishable by those Powers which are trusted with the maintenance of publicke Peace and that with the utmost punishment when the case deserves it So it is certain that it is not Christianity which is punished in so doing because Christianity contains nothing prejudiciall to Civile Society and publick Peace Setting these cases aside if no man can be constrained by capitall punishment to become a Christian it followeth that no Heretick Schismatick or Apostate from Christianity can be punishable with death meerly for the opinion which he professeth The same reasons rightly improved seem to conclude that no man is punishable by the civile death of Banishment from his native Country and People meerly for an opinion which he beleeveth and professeth though falsly to be part of Christianity For you see there is a great difference between the case of the Law and the Gospel The Law is the condition of a Covenant between God and the People of Israel by which they were all estated in the Land of Promise and every one in his severall interesse in the same So that whosoever should renounce or violate the condition of this Covenant which is the Law must needs become liable to the punishment of Death when the Law establisheth it and therefore to that of Banishment or civile Death or any lesse punishment when the Law enableth to establish it But the Gospel is the condition of a Covenant which tenders the Kingdome of heaven to all those that imbrace and observe it And therefore requires all Nations Kingdomes States and Commonwealths to enter into one Society of the Church meerly for the common service of God upon conscience of the same Faith and duty of the same obedience But otherwise acknowledging the same obligation both of Civile and Domestick Society as afore Whereupon it follows that as Christians imbracing Christianity freely because it cannot be truly imbraced otherwise purchase themselves thereby no Right or Privilege against the Secular Powers which were over them afore So no Secular Powers that are Soveraign by professing Christianity themselves purchase any Right and Power as to God of inforcing Christianity upon their Subjects by such Penalties as the Constitution of those Civile Societies which they govern enables them not to inflict according to the common Law of all Nations Wherefore seeing common reason discovereth not the truth of Christianity to us and therefore the common Law of Nations enjoineth not Christianity as the condition of Civile Society but that Civile Societies as they subsisted before Christianity so still subsist upon principles which for their Originall are afore it though for their perfection after it it seems that the Soveraign Powers of Civile Societies are not enabled to make Christianity the condition of being a member of those States which they govern But if Secular Powers be not enabled to punish the renouncing of Christianity or of any part of it with Naturall or Civile death doth it therefore follow that all men are by Gods Law to be left to their freedome to beleeve and professe what they please I suppose there are very great Penalties under the rate of those which the Constitution of Civile Societies by the Common Law of Nations will enable the Soveraign Powers thereof to punish the neglect of Christianity with when they have avowed it for the Religion of the States which they govern For in that case the neglect of Christianity is not onely a sin against God and a good conscience but against Civile Society and that reverence which every man owes the Powers that conclude his own People in thankfulnesse to the invaluable benefit of peaceable protection which he enjoies by the same Secondly seeing that all Religion excepting true Christianity is a most powerfull means of disturbing the publick peace of civile Societies though perhaps it professe no such thing expresly it follows by consequence that all Powers that are trusted with the preservation of publick Peace are enabled to forbid that which is not true Christianity by all penalties under those that have been excepted So that when true Christianity is forbidden under such penalties the fault shall be not in usurping but in abusing the Power in applying it to a wrong subject not in straining it to that which it extendeth not to And in so doing that is in suffering that which is so done it is not to be thought that Christianity can be wronged though wrong be done to the men that are Christians For seeing it is the common profession of Christians to bear Christs Crosse and seeing it was the disposition of God to advance Christianity to the Stern of the Romane Empire and to the Rule of other Christian Kingdomes and Commonwealths by demonstrating that it was not prejudiciall to Civile Society by the sufferings of the Primitive Christians it followeth that whatsoever a man holds for true Christianity cannot be demonstrated to be so as God hath appointed Christianity to be demonstrated but by the sufferings of them that professe it And therefore it remains agreeable to reason that God hath given Secular Powers such right to restrain pretended Christianity that when it is used against the true it cannot be said to be usurped but abused It will be said for it is said already that any constraint to Christianity by temporall punishment will serve but to confirm some and engage them to that which they have once professed contrary to truth and that others who to avoid punishment shall outwardly submit to what inwardly they approve not must needs forfeit all power of Christianity by preferring the world before any part of it To which it must be answered that all this granted proves not that it is unjust or that civile Powers have no right to make such Laws but that it is not expedient the exercise of it being probably to no good purpose which defeats not the right till it be proved that it cannot be exercised to any good purpose which in this point cannot be done For it is as probably said on the other side that by temporall Penalties a man is induced to consider with lesse prejudice that which the
And so Elizeus curseth the children to death on purpose to punish the affront offered his person In all which particulars you have manifest characters of the Law inflicting death for the punishment of sin whereas under the Gospel which giveth life the inflicting of bodily punishment serveth to procure the good of the world by manifesting the truth of the Gospel and the presence of God in his Church which was known and supposed under the Law because those who had received the Law could not make any question that God was amongst his people and spoke to them by his Prophets When I say that it might be lawfull to take arms upon the title of Religion under the Law I say not that it was so in all cases or that it was not lawfull for the Jews to be subject to forein Powers which was the doctrine of Judas of Galilee complained of by Josephus but that it was possible for some case to fall out wherein it might be lawfull As for the conceit of Judas of Galilee it is manifestly taken away by Gods command to the Jews under Nabuchodorosor Jer. XXIX 7. Seek the peace of the City to which I have sent you Captives for in the peace thereof you shall have peace And it is most remarkable that our Lord being falsly accused of this doctrine to Pilate by the Jews it pleased God to suffer it so far to prevail afterwards that the arms which they took afterwards against the Romanes and the miseries which they endured by the Zelotes and finally the ruine of the City Temple and Nation must needs be imputed to this doctrine which they falsly accused our Lord of to gain the good will of the Romanes But of Christianity it must be said on the contrary that there is no case possible wherein it can be just to take arms for preservation or reformation of it upon the title thereof that is to say where there is not a Power of bearing arms established by some other title of humane right For where there is any such Power and Right established upon a title which the Law of Nations justifieth it is not to be said that Christianity voideth or extinguisheth the same seeing it hath been said that it preserveth the state of this world upon the same terms in which they are when it is imbraced But neverthelesse it moderateth the use of it so that it cannot with Christianity be imploied in very many cases in which the Law of Nature and Nations justifies the use of it These things thus premised it will be easie to shew that the Presbyterians offer wrong when they demand that the superiority of Bishops over Presbyters be proved to be of Divine Right by some Precept of Gods Law recorded in the Scriptures Supposing that otherwise it will be in the Secular Power of it self to erect an Ecclesiasticall Power by taking it from them that have it and giving it to them that have it not and requiring that so it be done For it is notorious to the world that from the beginning they claimed that Presbyteries should be erected in stead of the Government of the Church of England upon this ground that the Presbyteries are commanded by God and that therefore the superiority of Bishops as contrary to his Law is to be abolished And that upon this pretense the people were drawn in to seek the innovation endevoured at this time So that to require now that it be proved that the superiority of Bishops is commanded by God to be unchangeable by men otherwise that it be changed is to require that the conclusion may stand without any premises to prove it Notwithstanding to passe by this advantage suppose we the superiority of Bishops neither forbidden nor commanded but introduced by Ecclesiasticall Right grounded upon the Power given the Church of giving Laws to the Church by determining that which Gods Law determineth not Supposing but not granting this to be true it will remain neverthelesse without the compasse of any Secular Power upon earth to erect this Ecclesiasticall Power by taking it from them which have it and giving it to them which have it not For wheresoever there is a Church and the Government thereof not contrary to Gods Law in those hands which have it by mans there the Apostles precept of obeying the Governors of the Church 1 Thess V. 14. Heb. XIII 17. must needs oblige the People to those Governors that are established not against Gods Law And this Precept of the Apostle being of that Divine Right by which Christianity subsisteth cannot be voided by any Secular Power by which the Church subsisteth not in point of Right but onely is maintained in point of fact For the obligation which they have to the Church and the Unity thereof and the Order by which that Unity is preserved and the Government in which that Order consisteth being more ancient then the maintenance of Christianity by the State cannot be taken away by any obligation or interesse thereupon arising And therefore as the first Christians that were under Christian Powers in the time of Constantine were bound to adhere to the Pastors which they had by the Law of the Church for which reason neither did Constantine Constantius or Valens ever endevour to intrude those Bishops which they were seduced to think necessary for the quiet of some Churches being indeed dangerous to Christianity by their own Power but by a pretended legall Act of the Church after Constantine took Christianity into the protection of the Empire upon the same terms as afore So are all Christians to the worlds end obliged to adhere to the Pastors which they shall have by the Law of the Church not contrary to Gods Law against the command of any Secular Power to obey others And to demand that Ecclesiasticall Power not contrary to Gods Law be dissolved by Secular to which the persons endowed therewith are Subjects is to demand that there remain no Christians in England that can be content to suffer for their Christianity by obeying Gods Law before mans especially when they can obey both acting by Gods and suffering by mans But though I insist upon this right of the Church yet it is not my purpose to balk the fruit of the Divine Right of Bishops upon such terms as it hath been asserted That is to say as that which no man may lawfully destroy though not as that which being destroied voideth the being of a Church if it can be done without Schism because not commanded particular Christians as the substance of Christianity but the Society of the Church for the maintenance and support of it For if no Secular Power be able to give that Power to the Presbyteries which must be taken from the Bishops supposing that the superiority of Bishops stands neither by nor against the Law of God but onely by the Law of the Church according to Gods How much more when it is demonstrated that it subsisteth by the Act of the
to Baptize such as should submit to the Gospel And so to judge whether each man did so or not which they that were trusted with the Gospel were by consequence trusted to judge The effect of this trust is seen in the many Orders and Canons of the Primitive Church by which those that desired to be admitted into the Church by Baptisme are limited to the triall of severall years to examine their profession whether sincere or not And such as gained their living by such Trades as Christianity allowed not rejected untill they renounced them Not that my intent is to say that these Canons were limited by the Apostles But because it is an argument that always to judge who shall be admitted to Baptisme and who not is another manner of power then to baptize being the power of them that were able to settle such Canons Though it is plain by the Scriptures that those Rules had their beginning from the Apostles themselves For when S. Peter saith 1 Pet. III. 21. that the Baptisme which saveth us is not the laying down the filth of the flesh but the examination of a good conscience to God 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 he sheweth that the Interrogatories which the ancient Church used to propound to them that were to be baptized were then in use and established by the Apostles as the condition of a contract between the Church and them obliging themselves to live according to the Gospel as Disciples And the Apostle Heb. VI. 2. speaking of the foundation of repentance from dead works the doctrine of Baptisms and imposition of Hands manifestly shews the succeeding custome of the Church that they which sued for Baptisme should be catechized in the Doctrine of the Gospel and contract with the Church to forsake such courses of the world as stood not with it to be brought in by the Apostles This is it which is here called the doctrine of Baptisms in the plurall number not for that frantick reason which the distemper of this time hath brought forth because there are two Baptismes one of John by water another of Christ by the Spirit but because it was severally taught severall persons before they were admitted to their several Baptisms And therefore called also the Doctrine of Imposition of Hands because we understand by Clemens Alexandrinus Paedag. III. 11. and by the Apostolicall Constitutions VII 40. that when they came to the Church to be catechized and were catechized they were then dismissed by him that catechized them with Imposition of Hands that is with prayer for them that they might in due time become good Christians All visible marks of the power of the Church in judging whether a man were fit for Baptisme or not To which I will adde onely that of Eusebius De vitâ Constant IV. where speaking of the Baptisme of Constantine he saith 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that confessing his sinnes hee was admitted to prayer with Imposition of hands If it be said that there were added to the Church three thousand in a day Acts II. 41. which could not be thus catechized and tried my answer is that two cases were always excepted from the Rule The first was in danger of death The second when by the eagernesse of those that desired Baptism the hand of God appeared extraordinary in the work of their conversion to Christianity Besides it is not said that they were baptized that day but that they were added to the Church that day Which is true though they onely professed themselves Disciples for the present passing neverthelesse their examination and instruction as the case required If therefore there be a power setled in the Church by God to judge who is fit to be admitted into it then is the same power inabled to refuse him that shall appear unfit then by the same reason to exclude him that proves himself unfit after he is admitted This is the next argument which I will ground upon the Discipline of Penance as it was anciently practised in the Church Which is opened by the observation advanced in the 127 p. of this little Discourse that those who contrary to this contract with the Church fell into sins destructive to Christianity were fain to sue to be admitted to Penance Which supposeth that till they had given satisfaction of their sincerity in Christianity they remained strangers to the Communion of the Church For it appeareth by the most ancient of Church Writers that for divers ages the greatest Sinners as Apostates Murtherers Adulterers were wholly excluded from Penance For though Tertullian was a Montanist when he cried out upon Zephyrinus Bishop of Rome for admitting Adulterers to Penance in his Book De Pudicitiâ yet it is manifest by his case that it had formerly been refused in the Church because the granting of it makes him a Montanist And S. Cyprian Epist ad Antonianum testifieth that divers African Bishops afore him had refused it maintaining communion neverthelesse with those that granted it Irenaeus also I. 9. saith of a certain woman that had been seduced and defiled by Marcus the Heretick that after she was brought to the sight of her sin by some Christians she spent all her days in bewalling it Therefore without recovering the communion of the Church again And he that shall but look upon the Canons of the Eliberitane Councell shall easily see many kindes of sins censured some of them not to be admitted to communion till the point others not at the point of death In this case and in this estate these onely who were excluded from being admitted to Penance were properly excommunicate neither could those that were admitted to Penance be absolutely counted so because in danger of death they were to receive the Communion though in case they recovered they stood bound to compleat their Penance And from hence afterwards also those that had once been admitted to Penance if they fell into the like sins again were not to be admitted to Penance the second time Concil Tolet. X. Can. XI Eliber Can. III. VII Ambros de Poenit. II. 10 11. Innoc. I. Ep. I. August Epist L. LIV. It is an easie thing to say that this Rigor was an infirmity in the Church of those times not understanding aright free Justification by Faith But as it is manifest that this rigor of discipline abated more and more age by age till that now it is come to nothing So if we goe upwards and compare the writings of the Apostles with the Originall practice of the Church it will appear that the rigor of it was brought in by them because it abated by degrees from age to age till at length it is almost quite lost that the Reformation of the Church consists in retaining it that we shall doe so much prejudice to Christianity as we shall by undue interpretation make Justification by Faith inconsistent with it And in fine it will appear that all Penance presupposeth Excommunication being onely some abatement of it There
is a sin unto death saith the Apostle 1 John V. 16. I say not that ye pray for it This is commonly understood of denying Gods truth against that light which convinceth the conscience Which if it were true the Apostles precept could never come into practice seeing no man can know unlesse by Revelation against what light his Neighbour sinneth But the Novatians at the Councell of Nice as Socrates and Sozomenus both report Eccles Hist I. 7. I. 23. answering Constantine that they refused Penance onely to those that sinned the sin unto death doe give us to understand that S. John was understood by the Church not to command that Apostates be admitted to Penance And so also Tertullian in many places of his Book de Pudicit as cap. XIV argueth from this place that Penance was not to be granted to Adulterers Which sheweth that the Church understood the place in the same sense though it admitted not his consequence So also Origen in Mat. XVIII 18. Tract VII I was long doubtful of the truth of this Interpretation because the Apostle premising If any man see his brother sin a sin not unto death let him ask of God seems to speak of private Prayers of particular persons But the words of S. James V. 16. have cleared me of this doubt Confesse your sins one to another saith he and pray for one another that ye may be healed In which words I make no doubt but he speaketh of publique Penance For having premised that the Presbyters be sent for to the sick that they confesse their sins to the Presbyters that they pray for them anointing them with oil that their sins may be forgiven them to shew neverthelesse that according to the custome aforesaid in case they recovered they were to stand bound to Penance he addeth Confesse your sins to one another to signifie that this Confession and Penance remained due before the Church as we understand by the XII Canon of Nice that the practice was so long afterwards And this is proved by the precept of both Apostles to pray for one another For it is manifest that there were two means to obtain remission of sins in this case the Humiliation which the Church prescribed and the Penitent performed and the Prayers of the Church Which S. John prescribeth not to be granted to Apostates The very same is the meaning of the Apostle to the Hebrews VI. 6. when he pronounceth it unpossible that those that fall away be renued again to Repentance For as they that stood for Baptisme when they were catechized in Christianity were properly said 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to be instructed or dedicated to Repentance because of the Repentance from dead works which they professed so they that forfeited their Christianity by violating the contract of Baptisme are no lesse properly said 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to be renewed instructed and dedicated again to Repentance And the Apostles reason agrees For because the earth that receives rain and renders no fruit is near the curse therefore the Church will not easily beleeve that such a one shall lightly obtain of God the grace to become a sincere Christian And therefore the Apostle says not that it is unpossible that such a one should repent but that he should be instructed again to repentance to wit by the Church As the Novatians answered Constantine that they remitted such persons to God not prejudicing their salvation but not admitting them to the means of Reconciliation by the Church And herewith agreeth the example of Esau used by the Apostle again XII 17. saying that he found not place of Repentance alluding to that roome in the Church where Penitents were placed apart by themselves And again X. 26. the allusion which he maketh to the custome under the Law understood by the Hebrews to whom he writeth consisteth in this that as there was no sacrifice to be made for Apostates though for Ethnicks for this was the use of the Law as we understand by Moses Maimoni in the Title of Dressing Oblations cap. III. num 3 5. So the Christian Sacrifice of the Prayers of the Church was not to be offered for those that had renounced Christianity If it be thus you will ask What was the fault of the Novatians seeing they understood this Text right And my answer is that neverthelesse they are Hereticks extending the name of Hereticks to those whom now we call Schismaticks as I have shewed you in the little Discourse pag. 197. that it is often used For S. John as he commands not so he forbids not that they be admitted to Penance the other Apostle tels them it is impossible to let them know that they must not expect it But neither says that the Church could not give it When therefore the Church to preserve Unity was necessitated to grant it as we see by S. Cyprian the Novatians were no lesse Schismaticks in making separation upon the quarrell though perhaps the reason be not urged by their adversaries then if they had understood the Text amisse The Unity of the Church being of more moment then much understanding in the Scriptures And so perhaps S. Pauls words will belong to this purpose 1 Tim. 5. 19. as not onely the Socinians of late but Pacianus among the Ancients Paraen ad Poenitentiam and Matthaeus Galenus among modern Writers do expound them To wit that when he saith Lay hands suddenly on no men nor partake of other mens sins he leaves it to Timothies judgement whom to admit whom not to admit to Penance Because this Blessing with Imposition of hands was not the mark of Absolution but of admission to Penance as well as the ceremony of Ordinations And though this Text of the Apostle be understood in particular of Ordinations yet by the same reason which he allegeth it is to be extended to all Acts of the Church that are blessed by the Prayers of the Church with Imposition of Hands For if Timothy by Imposing hands upon those whom he Ordains become accessary to their sins if they be unfit to be Ordained by the same reason if he Impose Hands that is grant Penance unto them that are not fit for it he becomes accessory to the sins which they commit by being admitted to it Imposition of Hands being nothing else but a ceremony of that Benediction which signifieth that those Acts to which it is granted are allowed and authorized by the publique Power of the Church So Imposition of Hands in Confirmation is the admission of him that is confirmed to the communion of the Visible Church In Penance the restoring of him In Ordination to the exercise of this or that function in the Church Prayer over the sick which the Apostle commands James V. 14. and our Lord in the Gospel made with Imposition of Hands signified the admitting of the sick to Penance And it is said that in some Eastern Churches to this day mariages are blessed with Imposition of Hands in signification that the Church
onely mark to discern what is the subject of Reformation and what not All Warre made upon the Title of Christianity is unjust and destructive to it Therefore Religion cannot be Reformed by force Of the present State of Christianity among us and the means that is left us to recover the Vnity of the Church THat which hath been said as it concerns the present case of this Church seems to be liable to one main Objection which is this That if the power of Bishops and Presbyters be such as hath been said by Divine Right that nothing can be done without them in their respective Churches it will follow that in case the State of the Church be corrupt by processe of time and their default especially so that the common good of the Church require Reformation by changing of Laws in force if they consent not it cannot be brought to passe without breach of Divine Right This may well seem to be the false light that hath misguided well affected persons to seek the Reformation presently pretended For seeing it is agreed upon among us that there was a time and a State of the Church which required Reformation and that if the Clergy of that time had been supported in that power which by the premises is challenged on behalfe of the Clergy this Reformation could not have been brought to passe It seems therefore to the most part of men that distinguish not between causes and pretenses that where Reformation is pretended there the power lawfully in force to the Society of the Church ought to cease that the Reformation may proceed either by Secular power or if that consent not by force of the People To strengthen this objection as to the Reformation of this Church it may further be said that though it is true that the Order of Bishops hath been propagated in this Church at and since the Reformation by Ordinations made according to the form of that Apostolicall Canon That a Bishop be Ordained by two or three Bishops yet if we judge of the Originall intent of that Canon by the generall practice of the Church it will appear that it is but the abridgement of the IV Canon of the Councell of Nice which requireth that all Bishops be Ordained by a Councell of the Bishops of the Province Which because it cannot always be had therefore it is provided that two or three may doe the work the rest consenting and authorizing the proceeding A thing which seems necessarily true by that which hath been said of the dependence of Churches consisting in this that the Act of part of the Church obliges the whole because that part which it concerns and the Unity of the whole which it produceth stands first obliged by it being done according to the Laws of the whole By which reason the Act of Ordination of a Bishop obliges the whole Church to take him for a Bishop because the Mother Church to which he belongs and the rest of Cathedrall Churches under the same do acknowledge it And this is that which the Ordinance of the Apostles hath provided to keep the Visible Communion of the whole Church in Unity To which it is requisite that a Christian communicate with the whole Church as a Christian a Bishop Presbyter or Deacon as such But when among the Bishops of any Province part consent to Ordinations part not the Unity of the Church cannot be preserved unlesse the consent of the whole follow the consent of the greater part And therefore though the Canon of Nice be no part of Divine Right yet seeing the precept of the Unity of the Church being the end which all the Positive Laws of Church Government aim at obligeth before any Positive precept of the Government thereof which we see are many ways dispensed with for preservation thereof and that it appears to be the generall custome of the Primitive Church to make Ordinations at those Provinciall Councels which by another Apostolicall Canon XXXVIII were to be held twice a year it seemeth that there can no valid Ordination be made where the greater number of the Bishops of the Province dissent Which is confirmed by the Ordination of Novatianus for Bishop of Rome which though done by three Bishops as the Letter of Cornelius to the Eastern Bishops recorded by Eusebius Eccles Hist VI. 43. testifieth yet was the foundation of that great Schisme because Cornelius was Ordained on the other side by sixteen as we reade in S. Cyprian Now it is manifest that the Ordinations by which that Order is propagated in England at and since the Reformation were not made by consent of the greater part of Bishops of each Province but against their minde though they made no contrary Ordinations And by the same means it is manifest that all those Ecclesiasticall Laws by which the Reformation was established in England were not made by a consent capable to oblige the Church if we set aside the Secular Power that gave force unto that which was done contrary to that Rule wherein the Unity of the Church consisteth But in other parts the Reformation established was so far from being done by Bishops and Presbyters or any consent able to conclude the Church by the Constitution of the Church that the very Order of Bishops is laid aside and forgot if not worse that is detested among them Upon which precedent it sounds plansibly with the greatest part among us that the Unity of the whole being dissolved by the Reformation the Unity of the Reformation cannot be preserved but by dissolving the Order of Bishops among us Before I come to resolve this difficulty it will be requisite to examine what Privileges and Penalties the Secular Power is enabled to enforce Religion within a Christian State Because it hath been part of the dispute of this time that some Privileges of the Church are contrary to Christianity as also some Penalties upon matter of Conscience And the resolution of it will make way to my answer Now the resolution hereof must come from the ground laid from the beginning of this Discourse that Christianity importeth no temporall Privilege or advantage of this present World and therefore that Christianity enableth no man to advance and propagate his Christianity by force For as it is contrary to the nature thereof to bee forced seeing the Service of God which it requireth is not performed by any man that is not willing to doe it nor the Faith beleeved but by them that are willing to beleeve it So seeing it gives no man any privilege of this world which he cannot challenge by a lawfull title of Humane Right and that no title of Humane Right can enable any man to impose upon another that Faith which Humane reason reveals not therefore can no Humane power force any man to be a Christian by the utmost penalty of death which is that which force endeth in to them that submit not It is true the Law of Moses imposeth death for a penalty in